report of the ncfr strategic research consultation workshop · 6. erler dirk - prof, school of...

NCFR Strategic Meeting Report April 2019 1

Report of the NCFR strategic research consultation workshop Lismore, Friday 12 April 2019


Contents

1. Executive summary 3 2. Workshop objectives 4 3. Workshop outcomes 5 4. Conclusion 8

Appendices:

I. Attendees 9 II. Workshop process 10 III. Minutes 12 IV. Introductory presentation 16

Acknowledgments:

Funding for this workshop has been provided by the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Southern Cross

University. Thanks are due to all the participants who gave freely of their time and ideas. Organisational

assistance in the production of this workshop and report was provided by Astrid Vachette and Jen

Sheppeard of the NCFR.

Corresponding Author: Professor Caroline Sullivan [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Section 1 Executive summary

This is a report on the outcomes of a 3 hour consultation workshop held to discuss the strategic research direction of the National Centre for Flood Research (NCFR). It was attended by 26 participants made up of a range of industry representatives, flood professionals, practitioners and researchers. The main objective of this workshop was to contribute to the development of a clear picture of what the NCFR can provide, and the research challenges it should address.

A series of knowledge elicitation activities took place and group discussions produced 5 core research themes, supported by 5 major concepts for each theme, and 5 key ideas for each theme. The five proposed research themes are all targeted towards the achievement of a flood resilient Australia, and were identified as:

Mitigation options

Land and waterscapes

Emergency management

Community awareness and capacity

Land use planning

This is illustrated and explained on Pages 5 and 6). This proposed framework now helps

to lay the structural foundation of research work to be carried out by the NCFR, and

identifies specific areas of research need. In an adaptive process, this will continue to

be developed as a demand-led research agenda.

Through written questions posed during the meeting, key organisations that ought to be

involved in flood research and flood response were identified. This helps to guide

researchers from the centre to seek appropriate research partnerships from the

practitioner community. Information on the trust placed in different information sources

was also collected. This report contains some brief analysis of this information and the

minutes from the meeting, along with a description of the workshop process and list of

attendees.

From the meeting it was concluded that future activities for the centre could include:

Preparation of project proposals

Clarification of funding opportunities

Further development of flood-focussed interdisciplinary networking

Identification of, and engagement with, project partners

Influence on government and private sector organisations

Promotion of positive behavioural change within flood-effected communities

Involvement of the business sector more explicitly in the achievement of flood resilience


Section 2 Workshop objectives

This workshop has been convened to gather feedback from key stakeholders, community and industry representatives, and scientists, on current needs for flood research. This feedback will then be used to inform the core research themes to be pursued by the centre.

Following the major consultation held at the 2018 NCFR Flood Symposium, there is a clear demand for flood research to focus on a wide range of issues, not only from the biophysical and social sciences, but also from an interdisciplinary perspective. While there are a number of researchers across Australia who carry out flood research, the NCFR is unique in being a research entity specifically designed to address the challenge of flooding in an integrated and holistic way.

With such a broad remit, the determination of a research agenda is not a trivial task, and thus wide consultation is essential to ensure that work done meets the needs of flood-impacted communities, operational agencies and globally recognised researchers. The outputs from this workshop provides a step forward towards that goal.


Section 3 Workshop outcomes

The results from the discussions presented here represent a suggested structure for the thematic research to be carried out in the National Centre for Flood Research. All comments on this proposed draft structure would be welcome.

The Draft summary figure below illustrates the hierarchical structure of the proposed 5 research themes, supported by 5 core concepts for each theme, and 5 key ideas for each theme. These are also presented in tabular format below, but the purpose of the figure is to illustrate explicitly how integrated and comprehensive information and research needs to be, in order to effectively address flood resilience.

Figure 1 5 proposed research themes for the NCFR


Table 1

NCFR Research themes, concepts and ideas

Draft analysis of written questions Question 1

In your opinion, which organisations, agencies or individuals are the five most important to participate in: Flood planning and prevention, and

Flood response and recovery Figure 2

This figure shows the mean and variance of the scores given to different organisations, to represent the importance of those organisations to the process of planning for flood events. It is interesting to note that even in this small sample, both OEH and councils were considered the most important agencies to influence planning, but 10 respondents also suggested SES should be involved. Interestingly, only one individual suggested that the insurance industry should be considered the most important overall. While six respondents indicated state government was important, there was a lot of variation in how important it was.

Themes Core concepts Key ideas

Mitigation Options Needs and tolerability Structural/non-structural assets

Mitigation Options Risk Perception Vulnerability

Mitigation Options Cost-effectiveness analysis Catchment modelling

Mitigation Options Artificial Intelligence Agency integration

Mitigation Options Natural capital Preparedness and insurance

Land- and Water Scapes Multiscale integrated mapping Interdisciplinary connections

Land- and Water Scapes Integrated models Downstream impacts

Land- and Water Scapes Stakeholder and knowledge management Informed management

Land- and Water Scapes Agricultural resilience Risks and scenarios

Land- and Water Scapes Asset management Industry and tourism

Emergency Management and Response Needs and vulnerability Early warning tools (EMCOP)

Emergency Management and Response Whole-of-flood costs Data ownership

Emergency Management and Response Optimism bias Citizen science

Emergency Management and Response Education and training Roles of volunteers

Emergency Management and Response Reliance vs. dependance Recovery and timing

Community Awareness and Capacity Logic vs. emotions Local knowledge

Community Awareness and Capacity Communication and connectivity Transient community risk

Community Awareness and Capacity Preparedness and training Neighbourhood vs. remoteness

Community Awareness and Capacity Urban and rural needs Health impacts

Community Awareness and Capacity Liability vs. asset Creative awareness

Land Use Planning Governance framework Community influence

Land Use Planning Multi-purpose land use Lifestyle adaptation

Land Use Planning Building design and architecture Business continuity and zoning

Land Use Planning Land tenure Hazard exposure

Land Use Planning Behavioural change Farmer preparedness


Figure 3

In the questions relating to which organisations would be important in the process of response to a flood event, the views were much more concentrated, with SES being unanimously identified as the most important. Local councils were identified as a strong second. Although individuals were also considered important, only three respondents identified this, perhaps reflecting the over-reliance on external support which has been observed in recent flood events. Community groups and state governments were held to be more important than federal government.

In question 2, respondents were asked “What do you think are the 5 most important sources of information that communities use during flood events?” and “How trustworthy is this information found from this source?” (1:most trustworthy– 5: least trustworthy). These results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4

This illustrates the trust that people have for the organisations they identified as being important sources of information. BOM by far was considered the most trustworthy source of information, with councils, the SES and other websites close behind. Interestingly, text messages and social media were trusted much less, but in fact identified as being important by many more respondents. A smaller number of people identified what appeared to be the most trustworthy sources. This indicates that there is a need to improve the useability of the BOM and Local Council flood information sites.


Section 4 Conclusions

This short workshop was designed to elicit views from a range of stakeholders about what issues should provide the focus for research carried out in the National Centre for Flood Research. Through a variety of elicitation mechanisms, information was collected and analysed to develop a draft strategic research framework for the NCFR. The five themes agreed upon encompass the major issues of concern relating to flood preparedness and response. These themes, the core concepts that underpin them, and their corresponding key ideas provide a broad opportunity for demand-led research applicable from the local to global scales.

In addition to seeking funding for the centre, work will continue on the development of integrated research proposals involving a variety of relevant disciplines. These will include members of both the NCFR, and other organisations. These research teams can be built as a result of the flood-focussed interdisciplinary networking. This has been facilitated by the NCFR, and its engagement with potential project partners, including members of the business community. The research carried out by the centre will support the promotion of positive behavioural change within flood-effected communities, and provide scientific support for government and private sector organisations to move towards a greater degree of flood resilience.

The outputs of this workshop and suggestions included in this report provide a draft framework as the start of an iterative process. All comments and suggestions on this will be welcome, and where relevant, will be assimilated into the NCFR research structure.


Appendices

Appendix I. Workshop attendees 1. Bahadori, Alireza - Lecturer, School of Environment, Science and Engineering SCU 2. Burton Ed - Prof of geochemistry School of Environment, Science and Eng, SCU 3. Chin Toong, - OEH Flood management group 4. Cooke Grayson - Deputy Head (Research), School of Arts and Social Sciences, SCU 5. Den Exter Kristin, Community Engagement, SCU 6. Erler Dirk - Prof, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, SCU 7. Filet Piet - Convenor, Flood Community of Practice, Queensland 8. Hurford Andrew - Director, Hurford’s Hardwood 9. Hartman Yvonne - School of Arts and Social Science, SCU

10. Darab Sandy - School of Arts and Social Science, SCU

11. Doust, Ken - School of Environment, Science and Engineering, SCU

12. Lancaster Graham Environmental Analysis Laboratory SCU 13. Leven Joseph - Northern Cooperative Meat Company 14. Markwell Kevin - Prof of Tourism, School of Business and Tourism Studies 15. McAndrew Kieran - Floodplain Coordinator, Clarence Valley Council 16. Moffett Scott – Flood engineer, ROUS CC 17. Pelizzon Alessandro - Senior Lecturer, School of Law and Justice SCU 18. Rose Andrew – Professor of Engineering, SCU 19. Rose Danny - Technical Director, Floodplain Management Australia 20. Somers Mark - Richmond Tweed Controller, NSW SES 21. Stewart Jeremy – Farmer and Member, Whian Whian Landcare 22. Sullivan Caroline - Director National Centre for Flood Research, SCU 23. Tjondronegoro Dian - Professor of IT, School of Business and Tourism SCU 24. Trevan Beth - 2019 Woman of the Year and Community Leader for Floods, Lismore 25. Vachette Astrid - Disaster Management Research, National Centre for Flood

Research, SCU

Research Centre heads - insights into needs for a successful research centre

Eyre Brad - Prof of Biochemistry, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, SCU

Harrison Peter - Director, Marine Ecology Research Centre SCU

Vanclay Jerry - Prof of Sustainable Forestry, School of Env, Science and Eng,SCU

Apologies

Dollery, Brian, UNE

Gordon Lorraine, SCU

Grant John, SCU

Heagney Elizabeth, OEH

Kortt Michael, SCU

Leslie Greg, UNSW

Luke Hanabeth, SCU

Longman Jo, University Centre for Rural Health

Maher Damien, SCU

Robinson Justin, BOM

Whitehead Rik, DPI Newman Paula - Strategic Planning Coordinator, Lismore City Council

(last minute apology) Williams Keith, Rous CC & Ballina shire Council


Appendix II Workshop process

The participants were involved in a number of data elicitation exercises during the Workshop. These included:

group brainstorming and individual concept framing,

group discussions on thematic research needs,

individual responses to 2 written questions

After the introduction to the Workshop by Prof Sullivan (see appendix IV), a group discussion was led by Dr Piet Filet, Convenor of the Queensland Flood Community of Practice. After open discussion, people then provided 3 topics that they thought were important for flood research. These comments were collected on post-it notes and arranged on a 4 way matrix with axes of infrastructure, environment, economy and community as shown below:

Figure 5

Participants were then divided into six groups to discuss six themes:

1. Structural Mitigation 2. Resilient Buildings 3. Landscape management 4. Disaster management 5. Community awareness and capacity 6. Land use planning

In each theme, groups were to focus on current and future flood risk, and to consider theme description, rationale and potential research project identification. After discussion, groups reported back to whole Workshop.

As a result of the discussions which followed, five thematic groups emerged, as follows:

Mitigation options based on a combination of the groups discussing Resilient Buildings and Structural Mitigation

Land and waterscapes (formerly landscape management – wanted more emphasis on the role of water and its impacts on landscapes)

Emergency management (formerly disaster management – want to change the implication away from disaster but recognising emergency contexts).

Community awareness and capacity – understanding and changing behaviour

Land use planning –uptake of best available science for urban and rural planning


Reporting back took place with team members presenting a summary of their discussions, as illustrated here:

Figure 6

After the five group presentations were complete, some discussion followed, with summary

points made. This information from the group discussions has then been combined with the

data elicited from the discussion (post-its), and the responses to the written questions (see

appendix IV). This has been analysed and presented here in Section 3 of this report.


Appendix III.

Minutes of the NCFR consultation Workshop Friday 12/4/19

Workshop opened 10:10

Caroline Sullivan opened the Workshop with a welcome and acknowledgement to Country.

SCU Research Centre Director Insights

Jerry Vanclay (Forestry)

Clarity was an important aspect of a good research centre.

Good research centres have clarity in their:

Objectives - must have a clear plan

Funding model – even with lean funds a lot can still be achieved

Outputs – management advice, publications, timeline

Brad Eyre (Centre for Biogeochemistry)

Mix of disciplines expanding the skill set

Limit the expense

Limit the duration, 5 years or longer to build capacity

Open plan office – mixing and more collaborative

Outside feedback/retreats to review progress

A good leader can

Bring people together

Build team spirit

Create a shared vision

Make decisions in best interest of centre

Recruit team players

Work hard for centre success, inspire teamwork

Must not run out of money

Peter Harrison (Marine Ecology Research Centre)

A diverse range of people

Balancing views

Different expectations

Sharing a common vision

Central funding needed to provide realistic scope for centre development

Focus on local and regional paths but must include an international scope as well

Group introductions

Around the table each person introduced themselves and gave a brief statement about their position and interest in the National Centre for Flood Research

Prof Sullivan gave an overview of the meeting objectives, aiming to build on outcomes of the Flood Symposium held in October 2018.

Each person was asked to come up with three areas of research interest on a sticky note to place under the following headings

Communication

Infrastructure

Environment

Economy


Dr Piet Filet (Queensland Flood Community of Practice) then summarised and highlighted the responses, and noted that most of them came under the six research theme headings. This was followed by general discussion about the research themes and the name of each area, with the following points highlighted

Landscape Management doesn’t explicitly include the environment

Integrating connectivity

Social interactions

Economics

Sense of outcomes

Disaster management articulation

Get the balance of themes correct

Move Current and Future Flood Risk to the centre of diagram

Disaster Management is not just about reaction after event but pre-event planning with collaboration with e.g. councils and practitioners

Foundational bases

Ecology, modelling environment

Planning

Suggestion to combine Land use Management and Land Use Planning so that there is space for Environment. Then suggested Landscape Management and Ecology

Groupwork on Theme description, rationale and potential research project identification

The workshop delegates then broke into thematic groups, to consider how their allocated theme related to current and future flood risk. After deliberation, each group then reported back to whole Workshop.

Group 1 and 2 - Resilient Buildings and Structural Mitigation combined

These groups merged and changed the thematic name to Mitigation Options.

Structural (buildings infrastructure)

Non-structural (environmental components such as vegetation, community and catchment response and warning).

Reducing vulnerability

Education

LGA planning

Standards

Awareness

Five areas of suggested research focus

Tolerability, levels of tolerance living in flood affected areas, being prepared to accept risk

Cost benefit analysis of every option

Risk perception

Catchment response model

Application of artificial intelligence for flood prediction

Research areas

Pilot project of catchment to see local situation of catchment response (all aspects).

Hydrological response, timings and early warning

Analysis of all mitigation options (e.g. accepting risk, relocating towns, business, homes)

Cost benefit analysis (good tool but can be flawed)

Assessment of all soft assets such as wildlife and giving a value to life and wellbeing


Group 3 – Landscape management

The group members suggested changing the name to Land and Waterscapes

Synthesis of knowledge

Bottom up approach (e.g. indigenous, community, citizen science)

Scientific research

Govt policy, practitioner & consultants

Engagement process to sort out patchwork of ideas and find out what is already out there

Integrated mapping of land and water assets across scales – Flood Research centre could be a custodian of mapping and modelling database

Hydrological/biogeochemical and ecological connections

Downstream impacts of flooding (positive and negative)

Identification and response to hazards

Integrated Models – Centre could take custodianship of open access models to build research tools shared by other agencies and consultants

Managing the catchment and floodplain for resilience and health informing management options

Test flood risk, test scenarios that aren’t usually tested

Pretesting ideas before handing options to consultants/policy makers

Global change scenarios (climate, acidification, population)

Iterative process- mapping and modelling

Discussion about sharing of knowledge and coordination of data sharing and understanding of assets. Scott Moffett from Rous CC talked about “RRC Flood intelligence warehouse” - gathering all modelling data and results from across 5 catchments. Prof Sullivan then added that the recently completed ARC Linkage project ‘ Water, carbon and economics: resolving complex linkages for river health”, did a similar thing gathering a reference to all water quality data that was available about the Richmond catchment. Scott Moffett said he would be interested to receive this and Prof Sullivan said she would arrange that.

Group 4 - Disaster management

Changed name to Emergency Management with three themes:

1. Before an event

Study on addressing optimism bias – evaluation of current community awareness programs

Education – courses for flood management, emergency management (grad certs, Msc, Bsc), transfer of skills, developing networks

Engagement methods

2. During an event

Emergency management training - what systems are in use nationally and internationally, how can we streamline the process and do things better

Study of systems (I.M.S.)

Tools such as EMCOP and Flood zoom (one source one message)

3. After an event

What is the true cost of a flood?

Develop an assessment tool

How do we engage community members and volunteers?


Group 5 – Community Awareness and Capacity

People and emotional aspects

Explore communication methods

Layers of information but connectivity missing

Elevate the value of local knowledge and ideas

Transient community awareness, awareness of what information is available

Preparedness – a relatively new concept within some communities, needs to be developed further (e.g. information letting community know where the safe places are to park cars with belongings, safe places to move stock, how to secure equipment)

The town turns its back to the river, but it should be considered as an asset (tourism, restaurants, bars, social activities)

Research opportunity for urban design and landscape planning

Group 6 – Land Use Planning

Who are the real stakeholders?

Important key aspects

research challenge - behavioural change, influences, case studies, zoning, climate change, interests, benefits, and valuation, development decision support.

1. Enabling sustainable change in the way we live in our communities

Acknowledging we don’t have much influence in high level planning,

How could community leaders drive land use planning?

Decisions and changes e.g. large landholders and employers are large influencers in the community - bring them into the conversation

Include community organisations and businesses and community leaders to help drive resilience, socio economic and environmental change.

Use more integrated and less deterministic modelling and prediction.

2. Understanding damage exposure through available data to help businesses decide e.g. to relocate to a better location, be better prepared and more resilient in the way they do business.

Identify and quantify the risk level and damage exposure as the businesses change

Journey towards levelling the playing field (level and scope of business intelligence)

Concluding discussion - Where to from here?

Clarify funding opportunities

Preparation of project proposals

Identify project partners

Influence other Government organisations

Develop a clear picture of what the Centre can provide.

Workshop closed 1:15 pm


Appendix IIII Introductory presentation and elicitation questions

Prior to the Workshop, participants had been asked to think about research themes relating to

their own disciplinary background, and consider what the theme is about, what the outcome of successful research would be, and who would be the main beneficiaries. As an introduction to

the Workshop itself, Prof. Caroline Sullivan presented some findings from the NCFR Flood Symposium of Oct 18, and some suggestions for core research themes.

During the discussion,

individuals were asked to

complete these 2

questions. This serves as

a pilot trial for a larger

survey being carried out.


SUMMARY: NCFR PROPOSED CORE RESEARCH THEMES


Lismore Airport, April 2017 Photo: Lismore Camera Club

For more information on the

National Centre for Flood Research

please visit:

www.scu.edu.au/floodresearch

http://www.scu.edu.au/floodresearch

report of the ncfr strategic research consultation workshop · 6. erler dirk - prof, school of...

Documents