Visions of Resilience - Design-led Transformation for Climate Extremes - Melbourne School of Design
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Visions of Resilience Design-led Transformation for Climate Extremes
Project Team With generous support from Hepburn Shire This report may be cited as:
and Surf Coast Shire.
Che Biggs - VEIL Biggs, C., Ryan, C., Bird, J., Trudgeon, M.,
Chris Ryan - VEIL and Roggema, R., 2014, Visions of Resilience:
Jessica Bird - VEIL Appendices are available via the online pdf Design-led transformation for climate
version here: extremes, Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab, The
Michael Trudgeon - VEIL
University of Melbourne
Rob Roggema - Wageningen University www.ecoinnovationlab.com/project/visions-of-
resilience/
With specialist contributions from:
Roger Jones - Victoria University
John Martin - La Trobe University
John Wiseman - The University of Melbourne
For enquiries about this report contact This work is licensed under a Creative
Martin Brennan - ICLEI
Che Biggs at VEIL: cbiggs@unimelb.edu.au Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
Ammon Beyerle - The University of Melbourne ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.
Philippa Abbott - A&D Projects
© Andrew van der Merwe, 2012
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Project aims and rationale 12
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13
2.1 Design-led intervention 15
Case studies 16
2.2 Process summary 18
2.3 Design principles for building local resilience 20
3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 21
Perspectives from the field 22
3.1 Site assessment 24
Mapping assets 24
Mapping vulnerabilities 28
Interpreting map results 32
3.2 Visions of resilience 33
Implications 43
3.3 Opportunities and barriers for climate resilience 44
Enablers and opportunities 44
Barriers 46
3.4 Process evaluation 48
Strengths 48
Areas for improvement 49
4 LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50
4.1 Lessons 51
4.2 Recommendations 53
REFERENCES 54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Climate change is re-writing the record book unrealistic certainty, and local stakeholders Critically, proposals involving compromise and
on weather extremes and communities face are not effectively integrated into the design radical change were not designed exclusively
the brunt of these impacts. In the wake of of mitigation strategies. Furthermore, at the to manage risks. They added services,
recent extreme events agencies at all levels organisational level, long-term decisions don’t skills and new assets that were aligned to
of government are turning to concepts reflect the severity of climate change risks. community identities and aspirations. These
like resilience to emphasise preventive lessons suggest emergency management
Building local resilience to climate extremes
disaster management. But resilience is a and other relevant agencies would benefit
requires new tools, thinking and practices to
novel concept for Australia’s emergency by framing disaster mitigation as community
address shared risks and guide adaptation
management institutions and translating it development, with risk management an
planning under extreme uncertainty. We don’t
into practice will be challenging. Significant integral but secondary outcome. Climate
have the ability to predict future extremes.
innovation is required to enable this mitigation strategies driven solely by risk
At best, our climate models and natural
process. The way disaster risks are currently management considerations are unlikely to
disaster experts can provide only a vague
conceived, how adaptation is planned and gain widespread buy-in.
idea of how severe local weather events will
which voices and views shape the planning
become. Preparing for this future is made
process must change. This report presents results of a two-year
more challenging by poor clarity over what
research project exploring community-
This report puts community stakeholders commensurate climate resilience looks like.
based visions of climate resilience and
at the heart of building resilience to climate Every community faces its own unique risks
barriers to change. Visions of Resilience
extremes. It demonstrates why and how local and its own opportunities for change.
was led by the Victorian Eco-Innovation
perspectives and values must have a seat at
This report outlines a tested process to Lab (VEIL) and funded by the Australian
the table when disaster mitigation strategies
help agencies and communities engage Government through the Victorian
are conceived and designed. Methods
creatively with the issue of extreme climate Department of Justice (Natural Disaster
to develop community-led strategies and
risks. Results show communities bring Resilience Grant Scheme).
identify local barriers to change, like the one
essential perspectives of local vulnerabilities
developed in this project, are essential to this Results are drawn from two Victorian case
and potential impacts to the design table.
process. studies in Anglesea and Creswick and
The report case studies emphasise that
interviews with emergency management
Emergency management practitioners building local resilience will depend on how
and climate change adaptation
surveyed and interviewed for this report much communities own the mitigation and
practitioners. The case studies tested a
acknowledge climate change will cause major adaptation strategies that affect them.
participatory design-led process where
and irreversible change at the community
The primary lesson is that building resilience communities explored local vulnerabilities to
level over the next two decades. However,
to climate extremes should be seen as a climate extremes and proposed desirable
these people also believe communities
social innovation process. Findings show mechanisms to build local resilience.
and emergency management agencies are
communities confronted with extreme climate Workshops with community and agency
failing to grasp the scale and urgency of the
scenarios can develop highly sophisticated stakeholders then explored pathways and
issue. Familiar institutions are not helping.
proposals for building local resilience. barriers to create these future ‘visions of
Emergency management practices are overly
Many involved radical changes – indicating resilience’. A workshop manual outlining
geared to disaster response at the expense
communities can and will re-prioritise the processes used can be found at: www.
of disaster prevention. Planning for extreme
valued assets when allowed to explore ecoinnovationlab.com/project/visions-of-
events is reliant on predictive methods and
and comprehend the scale of climate risks. resilience/
3
Devolution of control is key to a common cause. Examples included expert-driven culture. In this environment,
festivals, public-led arts projects, training disaster risk mitigation is narrowed to a top-
local resilience institutes and the formation of local down process where community is a passive
For communities threatened by climate commons. recipient of hazard information. In addition to
extremes, building resilience involves gaining overcoming this divide, bridging institutions
• Increasing influence over key functions
influence over local assets and over decisions are undermined by mistrust that ‘community-
outside community control. Proposals
about what is lost, protected and changed. resilience’ is a Trojan horse allowing state-level
involved augmenting centralised
Proposals for building resilience developed agencies to shed responsibility onto regional
infrastructure with local market gardens,
in this project show no evidence community and local government.
turbine-connected hill-top water storage
see government agencies as primary problem and farm-to-plate type business models. Many community-led concepts to build
solvers. Most proposals depict a shift in power resilience don’t fit traditional governance
from state to local government and local • Creating new institutions for sharing
or business model templates. Communities
government to community agents of change. ownership and governance of critical
feel solutions will involve concepts like town
Five core strategies were found to underpin all assets. These took the form of community
scale utilities, open source platforms for
community propositions for building resilience. owned utilities, food hubs, multi purpose
collecting and sharing environmental data
Each reflects some form of devolution in respite centres and machinery share
and hybrid water and energy grids. But
control and/or an increase in local agency. The schemes.
these don’t match traditional subsidised or
five strategies involved: competitive private enterprise service models.
• Harnessing and re-configuring under- Furthermore, many community proposed
used assets to diversify critical functions Critical barriers to building local initiatives also relied on some form of
(like energy, water, food and transport resilience collaborative business or governance model.
provision). Community proposals included These exist but are a long way from being part
using flooded mines to cool public Close to 40 common barriers were found of the emergency mitigation tool kit.
buildings and linking dams, storm water to pose a risk to community-led resilience
building. Three problem issues were found Building climate resilience from the
and household rain water collection into a bottom-up asks all stakeholders to
networked ‘water-bank’. to play a particularly influential role. To enable
community-led change, these issues must be question familiar roles. This includes
• Developing new partnerships to improve addressed. agencies acknowledging they often don’t
collective decision-making and increase have all the answers or have made mistakes.
transfer of disaster mitigation techniques Institutions that bridge communities This means losing position and status as
and survival experiences. Examples and emergency management agencies experts in the process. It also requires
included intergenerational mentoring are rare or ineffectual. There is a vast agencies to play new roles – as facilitators
projects, oral-history archives, men’s shed gap in how emergency management and or development partners when working at
style home retrofitting businesses, and community stakeholders see each other. A the local level. Communities will also be
inter-community, post-disaster, knowledge- few champions aside, communities aren’t challenged - particularly by having to take on
sharing programs. familiar with agency planning processes and new responsibilities and in having to accept
don’t have experience lobbying for agency the reasonable capacity limits of local and
• Strengthening social cohesion to support; they don’t know where to turn. state agencies.
improve access to local assets, harness For agencies, meaningful partnership with
local strengths and unite people around local stakeholders is limited by a hierarchical
Recommendations
Communities have a valuable role to play
in natural disaster management but don’t State and local government can do
have a seat at the planning table. Building much to foster local resilience to climate
resilience to climate extremes will take all our extremes. This research suggests
ingenuity and persistence. It requires bringing specific actions suitable for both levels of
communities and agencies together in creative government - including the following:
partnerships to envisage how climate resilient 1. Use scenarios of future climate extremes
communities can work and foster the social to periodically review state and local
innovations to make it happen. government disaster preparedness.
This report emphasises that building resilience 2. Develop an open online collection of
can’t be a defensive process. Preparing for community-driven resilience building
future climate extremes demands radical pro- initiatives and support tools – focusing on
active change - championed by the people business and governance models.
it will affect. New engagement methods and
design processes like the one developed in 3. Update existing emergency
this report will be critical. management guideline documents to
explain the deficiencies of probabilistic risk
estimates of future weather extremes.
4. Increase financial and material support
for community development programs that
address local vulnerabilities to extreme
weather.
5. Support action-oriented research on
how community-led social innovation can
improve local resilience.
6. Always define resilience when using the
term in public documents and adopt an
interpretation of resilience that prioritises
adaptation over resistance.
7. Experiment with the method used in this
project when designing local and regional
scale emergency or development planning
schemes.
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Whether you live in deep suburbia or in an disaster impacts manifest. These reforms
idyllic coastal town, chances are you have are widely seen as positive and necessary What do we mean by resilience?
experienced an extreme weather event. but translating them into practice is in its In this report we adopt a general framing of
You have probably been dizzy in a baking infancy. We urgently need to turn the rhetoric resilience that is not specific to a particular
heatwave, skipped a shower in a drought, and on resilience into action on the ground. shock or disturbance.
if not seen a bushfire, then at least breathed in Communities are already feeling the brunt of
the wind-blown smoke from one. Living with climate extremes. Resilience is the measure of disruption
these hazards is almost part of the national a town or local community can absorb
psyche. So do future climate projections of without losing its desired identity or critical
more droughts and floods sound like more of functions. Building resilience therefore
Climate change is an amplifier increases functional security and the ability
the same? They should. People aren’t good at
imagining what they haven’t experienced and of natural disaster risk to retain identity.
are worse at responding to threats that don’t Future planners and emergency managers
seem real. This is a major problem because may well look back enviably at current risk
climate change is re-writing the record book conditions. A growing body of research 100 year heat events (with an assumed 1%
on weather extremes. across finance and insurance [1, 2], global annual probability) [5]. The 2009 Victorian
Australian governments at all levels have development [3], and national security [4] heatwave that preceded Black Saturday and
responded to recent weather extremes by describes a near future with a radically the Russian heatwaves prior to the 2010
emphasising resilience as a goal in emergency different risk landscape to the one we now wildfires were at this scale. With decades of
management policy. This includes advocating operate in. Today’s extreme events are additional warming ‘locked-in’, the spread
for more decentralised and adaptive shaping to be tomorrow’s norms. and intensification of heatwaves will continue
approaches to natural disaster management – possibly beyond our comprehension.
Climate change impact research has moved
and more focus on vulnerabilities at the ‘local’ Recent climate modelling projects that in a
well beyond questions of ‘if and where’ to
or community level – where most natural few decades, small areas (3%) of the planet
focus on unpicking ‘how quickly and how
may even feel 1-in-4,500 year magnitude
much’. The picture from this research shows
heat events [6]. These lie far outside historical
whole-scale shifts in environmental conditions
About the project experience; we have no comparisons.
are occurring at many spatial scales. It only
This report presents findings from a two- takes small changes in global averages to The amplification of heatwaves is just one
year research project run by the Victorian transform climate conditions at the regional symptom of climate change. Major shifts
Eco-Innovation Lab at the University scale. Regional shifts are again amplified at will occur in most areas of the environment,
of Melbourne. The project was funded the ‘local’ scale. For communities in towns and a growing body of recorded data shows
by the Australian Government through and suburbs this means radical changes to changes are well underway. A brief survey
the National Disaster Resilience Grants the weather extremes they are accustomed of peer-reviewed science indicates southern
Scheme. The work targets deficiencies to. The 0.80C increase in global temperature Australia will see major changes in weather
in the way natural disaster management recorded so far is already driving the formation patterns including seasonal shifts, greater
practices mitigate impacts from climate of weather events that lie outside the bounds storm intensity, more intense drought and
extremes and transfers concepts like of local experience in many parts of the more days of extreme fire-risk. In the oceans,
resilience into tangible strategies. globe. Since the 1960’s there has been a we are already seeing other symptoms such
ten-fold increase in areas experiencing 1-in-
7
as greater acidity and temperature increases growing because the links between economic,
What do we mean by emergency
affecting the health and distribution of political, technical and environmental systems
management?
some species [7-10]. With greenhouse gas are increasingly tight. This ‘tight coupling’
emissions on track to drive 4-6°C of global means the buffers, redundancies and fail-safe When emergency management is
warming this century, far more catastrophic mechanisms normally able to mitigate volatility mentioned in this report, it refers primarily
global-scale changes are also possible. The are easily overwhelmed [19]. In this hazard to the set of practices and organisations
loss of major ice sheets, growth of oceanic ‘echo-chamber’ [17], even small changes can concerned with natural disaster
‘dead zones’ and the disappearance of vast lead to an amplifying cascade of knock-on management. However, because the
tropical ecosystems are realistic possibilities impacts. The effects of extreme weather can issues and lessons explored are more
[11-13]. Each of these environmental therefore propagate well beyond their point of broadly applicable and relate to people
hazards will bring their own suite of knock-on origin and increase the chance of unexpected and agencies with very different roles
consequences. A range of likely examples and synergistic impacts. These snowball-to- and titles we use the umbrella term of
include increases in the spread of some avalanche possibilities are most likely where emergency management (EM).
diseases, negative affects on life expectancy systems are already stressed [20]. Because
and psychological stress [14], reductions in climate change is a primer for systemic failure,
power station and distribution efficiency [15], climate-proofing cities, towns and suburbs
even falls in the protein content of certain must take into account the possibility of
crops [16]. synergistic hazards like resource security,
investment dynamics or political stability. They
Emergency managers face a future where are part of the same risk landscape. A critical
many major disasters won’t have a clear question then is how should emergency
origin or cause, only catalysts. management evolve when the stakes are
The diversity and scale of climate change higher and the threats harder to pre-empt?
impacts have prompted some experts to call
for a new approach to thinking about future
risks [17]. Emergency managers face a future
where major disasters won’t always have a
clear origin or cause, just a growing set of
possible catalysts. Grasping this emerging
risk environment at the policy and strategy
level is more important than identifying
specific future hazards. It’s about seeing the
wood from the trees. In its Global Risks 2014
report [3], the World Economic Forum notes
climate change is one of multiple drivers of
‘systemic risk’. At this level, risks are capable
of causing “...breakdowns in an entire system,
as opposed to breakdowns in individual parts
or components…” [18]. Systemic risks are
Three innovation challenges for extreme events are rare, there’s limited data to climate models, known (and potentially
indicate natural frequency [25]. However, data catastrophic) phenomena were simply left out
emergency management availability masks bigger issues about to how because they were poorly understood [32].
This report focuses on three areas where people think about, manipulate and interpret Factoring in these knowledge gaps means
emergency management must evolve to data to define (and downplay) risk. models produce wider uncertainty values
(and include more extreme events). This
match the risk landscape now emerging. A common example involves specialists
type of risk ‘filtering’ helps reduce decision-
creating climate and statistical models that
making uncertainty [32] but the end results
deliver false certainty about future weather
Challenge 1 – Weaning emergency underestimate potential hazards. Critically, it’s
events [26]. For example, flood and drought
management off prediction based planning the high-impact possibilities that are ignored.
models typically assume the frequency of
Organisations basing adaptation strategies on
Widely used methods for assessing risk extreme events follow clear patterns. This
‘most-likely’ climate scenarios filter risks in the
and disaster probability rely on questionable approach can work at a year or decade scale,
same way.
assumptions and subjective value-based but often does not reflect variation over longer
decisions [22]. They can pose a liability in a periods [27]. Underlying climate patterns are “…there are no institutional processes for
world of climate extremes. not fixed; they change naturally, sometimes designing with the uncertainty caused by
dramatically. Global warming is also re- climate change in mind.”
In particular, risk management practices
coding the climate systems we have based
that rely on narrow, quantified estimates Council officer, Melbourne metropolitan area
our methods around [28, 29]. Designing and
of risk undermine preparation for climate
interpreting climate models as if clear long-
extremes. This ‘predict-then-act’ paradigm In institutional environments where risk
term patterns exist makes it easier to calculate
[23] is particularly evident in insurance, civil uncertainty creates problems for decision-
clear probabilities for floods and drought
engineering and spatial planning where risk makers, disaster response will likely trump
events. It helps decision-makers calculate
management relies on definitive frequency prevention. When risks are downplayed
risks but it does not necessarily make them
and probability estimates of hazard events to reduce uncertainty, it makes sense that
accurate.
[24]. These practices work well for frequent mitigation gets overpriced and underfunded. It
events with familiar impacts. However, they Artificial clarity is also prioritised over risk is therefore no surprise that a recent study by
can undermine mitigation by giving decision transparency in subtler ways. For example, Deloitte Access Economics found resources
makers artificial certainty about the scale and people tend to take definitive estimates spent on disaster recovery eclipse mitigation
likelihood of future events. of risk more seriously than descriptive by 10:1 in Australia [33].
accounts or figures with large uncertainty
“Subjectivity permeates low probability high values. Psychological studies show people
An important starting point to address this
consequence risk assessments because mitigation deficit is transparency. Practitioners
consistently down-play the likelihood and
they rely on judgements at every step of the need to know the limits of probability
seriousness of events we haven’t experienced
evaluation for extreme weather events. It is
process.” [21] [30]. People also commonly ignore risk
also important to recognise many of these
factors they don’t understand or agree with
Probability estimates of low frequency, high limits can’t be solved by better disaster
[31]. These behaviours simplify decision
impact weather events can be misleading. prediction. The knock-on impacts from
making but have major implications for risk
Partly, this is because estimates are climate change are too complex and context
mitigation. For example, in some global
extrapolated from historical records and since specific. At best, improved data collection and9
modelling capabilities will allow us to explore Challenge 2 – Pursuing resilience-as- In an unpredictable hazard environment, a
possible future risks with more clarity but not adaptation over resilience-as-strength community’s ability to resist and bounce-
predict extreme event probability in advance. back may mask or exacerbate longer-term
Resilience is a popular term in policy and
New practices are needed to help natural problems. Strengthening resistance can mean
planning. But it is a contested concept often
disaster managers explore and plan for highly resources are wasted protecting assets that
vaguely defined. How resilience is ‘framed’
uncertain and catastrophic hazards. were poorly conceived, located and designed
and which frame becomes institutionalised
or that will inevitably fail. A focus on ‘bounce-
Scenario-based methods are an example will play a big role in shaping natural disaster
back’ can also mean resources are spent after
of the practices used to help organisations mitigation for decades.
a disaster to recreate the vulnerabilities that
plan for high risk and uncertain futures. They
Two differing perspectives on resilience are existed before. In worse case scenarios, the
have been developed in response to the limits
often used in EM. One prioritises strength, resources spent on protection and recovery
of predictive models and use quantitative
resistance and rapid return to pre-disturbance undermines resilience - leaving communities
and qualitative evidence to identify multiple
conditions. The other emphasises the without the means and capacity to change.
future operating (or hazard) conditions.
maintenance of flexibility and the capacity to
Scenarios are used as a conceptual shock- An alternative framing of resilience focuses
adapt in a desired direction - prompted by
test for organisations - helping identify critical on retaining critical functions and identity in
actual or expected disturbances [40].
unknowns, identify high risk possibilities and the face of shocks through adaptation. To
evaluate planning and investment decisions. Traditional EM approaches tends to follow explain, we’ll use a community scenario. Any
the ‘strengthen, resist and bounce-back’ community needs critical functions to exist;
In Australia scenario methods are rarely
approach. For example, in Victoria’s Critical the ability to access water, energy and food
applied to disaster resilience at the local
Infrastructure Resilience Interim Strategy and ways to exchange goods and services
government or community level. Where
[41], the emphasis is on urban hardware for example. But it does not necessarily need
they are used, exploratory scenarios are
being resistant, reliable and involving these functions to be delivered in a particular
often not respected as decision-making
redundancies. Management’s primary role is way. Houses can be heated using bar-
tools. Our planning institutions struggle to fit
building the capacity to respond and recover heaters powered by vast electrical distribution
scenario methods into existing prediction and
from disruption. The Insurance Council of systems or by the particular placement of
evidence-based decision making practices
Australia [42] takes a similar approach in their windows, thermal mass and insulation. It’s
[39]. However, internationally, scenarios are
description of community resilience. They the function - heating - that matters most. Of
increasingly used to guide decisions and
emphasise a capacity to respond and mitigate course, a community is not just a collection
investment where extreme events pose major
disasters through household preparation and of functions. It has an identity (or identities) –
risks. Recent and on-going applications
insurance. These principles are important but shaped by its collective values and aspirations
include business contingency planning [34],
only reflect aspects of resilience geared to and reflected in what people do and expect
defence and security [35], food security
protecting existing institutions, organisations of each other. These values and aspirations
assessment [36], insurance risk assessment
or assets. This framing of resilience is best might also be expressed in different ways. For
[1] and disaster preparedness [38].
applied in a stable risk environment. It puts example, activities that reflect a connection to
little emphasis on evaluating how appropriate the natural environment or express a strong
systems at risk are or on how to build flexibility volunteer ethic can take many forms.
and enable change.A resilience-as-adaptation approach Challenge 3 – Embedding disaster
focuses on protecting the critical elements mitigation in everyday community What do we mean by community?
of a town or region but emphasises change practices For this report we see communities as
and flexibility in this process. It reduces groups “…who live in a similar region; those
Communities have a central role in building
focus on less essential factors like habits of who have similar characteristics and relate
local resilience but are passive ‘bit players’
behaviour and built assets often imbued with to each other as a community; and those
in natural disaster management. Despite
everyday significance but whose protection who come together in response to an
agency recognition that engaged communities
can inhibit change. Building local resilience issue…” [47]. By a ‘local community’, we
are important [21, 43-45] EM structures and
must be grounded in community values mean those living in the same place.
practices still reflect an ‘experts-lead, citizens-
and aspirations. An emphasis on retaining
follow’ model. In COAG’s National Strategy for
functions and identity recognises this.
Disaster Resilience, for example, EM agencies
Pursuing a resilience-as-adaptation approach are advised to support local resilience by essential in day-to-day community functions,
poses a number of challenges. It requires providing “…community with the information they provide an existing foundation on which
projects and programs to be highly sensitive needed to prepare for and mitigate the climate resilience can be built.
to local context, including at the level of impact of natural disasters” [46]. Decades
community cultures and shared-meaning. of research on information-led behaviour Building on the strengths within communities
Strategies and programs to build local change suggest this will be of limited value. will require emergency management agencies
resilience must therefore avoid the types The roll-out of Township Protection Plans in to play a facilitation role and support people-
of centralised template solutions often Victoria demonstrates a similar approach. led or ‘co-design’ approaches to disaster
rolled-out by government agencies. Our Council, SES and CFA officers interviewed mitigation. There is a strong shift in European
preferred approach also relies on identifying for this project criticised the “cookie-cutter” public policy to adopt this type of approach
and understanding the complex dynamics process for breaking fundamental principles across many areas of government. It is
among climate and non-climate risk factors of engagement, including not giving locals a reaping benefits because innovative solutions
at a suburb, town and regional level. Without meaningful say in designing plans to match are being developed, explored and tested by
tangible knowledge of the risks facing towns their environment. It is another example of the people they affect most [50]. The same
and communities from climate extremes, we a top-down template approach to disaster argument can be made for climate resilience.
can’t determine what subtle changes might mitigation. It shows little sensitivity to context Research shows clear benefits where people
mitigate those risks. As the retainers of this or the attributes that make up an engaged, and agencies see communities as ‘innovators’
information, communities will need to play a fire-ready community. rather than simply ‘implementers’ of disaster
leading role in an adaptation-driven approach preparation and response [43]. Some of the
Community dynamics are as central to local most positive stories emerging from recent
to climate resilience.
disaster mitigation as EM expertise. Factors natural disasters and at-risk communities in
such as social connectedness and cohesion, Australia show people responding to risk and
knowledge of local hazards and vulnerabilities, vulnerability in their own ways. Communities
access to resources and collective leadership are cultivating new connections to learn from
will be vital in a changing risk landscape each other’s disaster experiences, organising
[47-49]. Because these attributes are also networks of support and experimenting11 with new ways to deliver, access and pool also identifying what barriers stand in the way. resources [51, 52, 81]. However, some Neither can be addressed without exploration ‘success’ stories also describe a lack of EM and experimentation. We need the tools to agency tolerance for community innovation. navigate both challenges in a collaborative They involve instances where communities way. have needed to break laws in order to address local vulnerabilities [81]. Most community- led examples are also focused on building disaster response capabilities. More work is needed to foster local disaster mitigation and preparation. Communities need strong reasons to buy into and ensure new practices and thinking ‘sticks’. Therefore, strategies for addressing natural disaster risk must connect with what people value and aspire to. Paradoxically, EM agencies may be more effective at supporting pre-emptive mitigation by not focusing solely on risk and vulnerability. Having strong capabilities in areas like community development and small business innovation may be just as important. Ultimately, building climate resilience must make a positive contribution, add meaning or at the least, make sense to everyday life. Climate change poses a rapidly evolving risk landscape. Effective adaptation will require changes to the way risks are assessed and addressed and which stakeholders play a leadership role in the adaptation process. This will challenge the way our communities, governance procedures and systems of resource provision work. Building the culture and institutions for a world of climate extremes presents the dual challenge of learning what desired climate resilience will look like while
1.1 Project aims and rationale
The aim of this project was to understand Only when these questions have been
what impedes or enables the development answered can we ask - what challenges will
of local resilience for climate extremes. As desired changes face?
discussed, our society has only a vague
The objectives of this work were to:
conception of future hazards and even less
understanding about what a climate resilient 1. Develop a participatory scenario-based
community might be like. How then do we process for identifying positive resilient
approach this problem? How do we identify futures.
the barriers to a future we don’t know, using
2. Apply the process in two case study
processes we don’t have?
towns with their communities and broader
Our answer was to develop an intervention stakeholders to explore and understand:
process in two communities, ask community
• opportunities and factors necessary to
participants to envision resilient futures and
build local resilience to climate extremes
ask stakeholders what was needed to create
those futures. We looked for barriers every • barriers (particularly institutional barriers)
step of the way. This strategy was informed to local resilience building
by the logic that to identify the challenges
communities face in building resilience to • potential mechanisms (including policy
climate extremes, we must first understand: recommendations) to overcome barriers
and help build local resilience to climate
• what communities value and where they extremes.
want to prioritise resilience building
3. Verify results with literature reviews, a survey
• what will be affected by weather extremes, and interviews.
and what matters most to those affected
4. Produce a ‘how-to’ guide to enable others
• what adaptive changes communities see as to replicate and adapt the process.
desirable and undesirable
• how desired changes could occur.Section 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research process combined a mix of and community. Research from the UK, Survey
traditional and design-led research methods Canada, New Zealand and the US was also
comprising four elements: analysed for comparison and verification. An anonymous online survey captured
Results were summarised into a systems of responses from 50 practitioners involved
• a review of literature in the emergency and risk management,
influence diagram (Appendix 1) to understand
• interviews with community stakeholders and the relationships and connections between climate change adaptation or planning fields
climate change adaptation and emergency critical barriers. The diagram was used to help in Australia. The majority (83%) were Victorian.
management practitioners in local and state identify critical barriers and potential leverage The survey was emailed to organisations
government points for change to explore in interviews listed on the Emergency Management
and workshops. The review of literature was Manual Victoria contact directory, through
• a survey of climate change adaptation and the Victorian Greenhouse Action alliances
also conducted to identify key ingredients
emergency management practitioners and disseminated via the LinkedIn Climate
and principles for resilience relevant to local
• development and testing of a scenario- community contexts. Adaptation Group. Questions explored
based workshop process (the design-led individuals’ perceptions of climate change,
intervention) in two case study towns. the future risk environment and agency
Interviews preparedness (see page 22 and appendix 3).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted
Review of literature with 13 climate change adaptation and
Results from the previous three elements were
The review included a study of material in emergency management practitioners in
used to inform the design of the scenario-
the fields of climate change adaptation, Victorian local and state government agencies
based workshop process (section 2.1),
emergency management and risk (Appendix 2). Interviewees were identified
confirm assumptions guiding the intervention,
management to identify barriers to local through professional networks (including
and help analyse results.
resilience. The review primarily explored referrals). Questions explored institutional
literature from Australia with a focus on challenges to planning for weather extremes.
identifying barriers affecting local government15
2.1 Design-led intervention
The main component of the research involved For each case study town, the process
Why – scenarios for 2037?
testing a design workshop process in two revolved around a set of two workshops
Victorian towns. Design-led interventions are conducted 9-12 months apart. The first From VEIL’s experience running future
particularly useful as a research tool when of these workshops enabled community visioning processes, a 25-year time
exploring complex problems where no clear participants to: horizon is ideal for exploring ‘what-if’ future
solutions exist, and for approaching them scenarios. 25 years is distant enough
• explore the implications of a worst-case
from multiple angles. Done well, they can from the present that organisational
future climate scenario set in the year 2037
inhibit normal practices, force new thinking decision-makers can put aside current
and expose alternative view-points and • identify a range of adaptation options responsibilities. But it is also close
assumptions - revealing insights that are enough that any dominant technologies
• propose desired visions of the future.
difficult to detect simply by asking questions are probably known today. Furthermore,
or observing everyday behaviour [53]. The second workshop explored barriers to climate modelling indicates emissions
a sub-set of visions proposed in the first reductions will not make a significant
The workshops had a dual purpose: to
workshop. It helped uncover many of the difference to environmental conditions until
test a prototype method that could help
institutional factors likely to influence local around 2040; at which point the climate
local communities develop resilience in
resilience building. conditions linked to alternative emissions
responses to climate extremes; and to act
trajectories begin to diverge [6]. This last
as a provocative intervention, helping the After presenting the two case study towns factor reduced the complexity of scenario
research team identify barriers, challenges (Anglesea and Creswick) we summarise creation. It meant there was no need to
and opportunities relevant to building the six major stages in the development take emissions scenarios into account
natural disaster resilience. The workshop and application of the workshop process. when exploring climate conditions.
methodology was influenced by VEIL’s A full description of the processes can be
Eco-Acupuncture program involving design- downloaded as a stand-alone manual from
led enquiry, scenarios and future visioning ecoinnovationlab.com/project/visions-of-
processes. Input from designers in the project resilience/
team was also crucial. The workshops
combined elements of scenario planning,
vulnerability assessment, future-visioning and
back-casting processes [54, 55].Case studies Anglesea considered highly vulnerable to bushfire. Fire
risk is likely to increase in the future as climate
Anglesea lies at the eastern end of Victoria’s conditions become dryer and hotter. Projected
Anglesea and Creswick were selected from
iconic Great Ocean Road (GOR), 110 km climatic shifts will also see longer heatwaves,
12 potential sites in Victoria. There were four
south-west of Melbourne. Located in the Surf exacerbate existing water shortages in the
selection criteria.
Coast Shire, it has a permanent population of town and contribute to the risk of blackouts.
1. Exposure: Sites are susceptible to multiple around 2,500 and a peak summer population Higher intensity rainfall events may also
climate related events. that grows to over 16,000. The town create problems with localised flooding along
community self-identifies as a coastal village the lower stretches of Anglesea River (short
2. Complexity: A scale large and complex and has a strong cultural connection to the
enough to involve multiple economic duration flooding is already a problem). Sea
ocean and surrounding bush. Key aspects level rise will also pose an erosion threat to
activities, social groups, strengths and of the town include its pristine beaches and
weaknesses but also small enough to multiple sections of the Great Ocean Road
bio-diverse heathland; a high non-resident and key low-lying buildings and assets.
enable the researchers to understand the population; an ageing demographic; higher
primary dynamics in each town. Areas of Anglesea built on land that has been
than average level of volunteerism and a small artificially raised are most at risk. By 2037,
3. Partnership: Shire council interest and a open cut brown coal mine [56, 57]. Anglesea’s Anglesea may also confront the prospect
willingness to participate in the process. economy is heavily reliant on seasonal income that key climate tipping points will have been
from tourism. crossed – triggering irreversible loss of major
4. Contrast: Comparatively different social,
The town has a history of bushfires (it was ice-sheets at both poles (translating to many
economic and environmental conditions.
badly affected in the 1983 Ash Wednesday meters of sea level rise) and major changes in
fires) and is one of 52 Victorian towns ocean and terrestrial ecosystems [58-60].
Creswick
Anglesea
Victoria, Australia17 Creswick Creswick lies 130km north-east of Melbourne and 15 minutes from Ballarat, with a population of around 3,300. Located in Hepburn Shire, Creswick has a post-colonial history strongly linked to primary production. Gold mining, forestry and agriculture have played a major part in the town’s economy at different stages. Key features of the town include its links to Federation, gold mining era heritage, natural amenity, a strong volunteer culture and a strong arts community. The University of Melbourne has a campus in Creswick [61-63]. Creswick is surrounded on three sides by bushland and plantation forests and has a history of flooding and bushfires. It was recently affected by three back-to-back flood events in late 2010 and early 2011 which severely affected parts of the town [64]. Creswick faces a warmer and drier future due to climate change, with fewer, more intense rainfall events. Likely implications include more intense droughts, more days of extreme heat and fire danger and a reduction in runoff to dams and creeks. High intensity rainfall events will also contribute to soil erosion and increase the impact and frequency of flash flooding along Creswick Creek [59, 65, 66].
2.2 Process summary
1. Context analysis 2. Scenario and workshop design 3. Participatory visioning workshops
• Engagement with shire councils • Climate data analysis • Identification of assets
• Field research • Future scenario creation • Identification of vulnerabilities
• Local stakeholder interviews • Scenario verification • Identification of adaptation options
• Quantitative data collection • Workshop process design • Exploration of positive futures
This stage set up the conditions for the This stage involved designing the visioning Two-day facilitated workshops were run in
design workshops in Anglesea and Creswick workshop process and creating scenarios for Anglesea and Creswick. Each involved 25-35
and gathered the raw material that would Anglesea and Creswick. Both scenarios were participants comprising local community
be translated into future scenarios. Semi- developed by combining local knowledge members assisted by design facilitators.
structured interviews and conversations obtained through interviews and plausible Design students from the University of
were conducted with Shire officers and worst-case interpretations of climate change Melbourne also participated in Creswick.
community members to understand important projections set in 2037. The scenarios were Key stages saw participants identify local
local issues, people’s concern about natural translated into three first-person perspectives assets, explore vulnerabilities arising from
disasters, historical disaster events and of everyday life as seen by fictional residents the future climate scenarios and identify
shared values. Interviewees were identified (scenario stories). Using multiple narratives possible adaptation strategies. Concepts
through referral. Data was also gathered allowed different combinations and for adaptation were strongly guided by a
from historical literature, local newspapers manifestations of extreme weather to be series of resilience-based design principles
and census material. Where possible, issues presented. The physical impacts of climate (summarised on page 20). Each workshop
and anecdotes were cross-referenced. change were discussed with climate scientists resulted in more than 50 tangible propositions
Climate conditions were derived from CSIRO to test their plausibility. Extrapolation of tertiary for building resilience.
modelling (MK3.5 outputs based on A1B and impacts described in the scenarios was
A1F1 emissions scenarios). based on analysis of climate change literature.
Scenario stories for Creswick and Anglesea
are in Appendices 4 and 5.19
4. Synthesising workshop outputs 5. Showcasing visions for feedback 6. Pathways and barriers workshops
• Analysis of workshop results • Display of visions online and on the street • Exploration of pathways for change
• Development of visions and narratives • Collection of stakeholders responses • Identification of barriers to change
(‘visions of resilience’)
Visions of the future were posted around both • Identification of leverage opportunities
• Exploration and critique of visions with towns. In some cases, posters were given
Workshops were held in Melbourne,
expert forum QR codes to encourage broader audience
Hepburn Shire and Surf Coast Shire to
engagement and direct people to websites
Outcomes from the visioning workshops explore pathways and barriers to enabling
where they were encouraged to leave
(audio recordings, drawings, facilitator notes, the community visions. Participants
comments. Visions were adapted to different
maps and participant stories) were developed numbered between 20 and 25 local and
media (a facebook page [facebook.com/
into a small set of representative future visions state government representatives with some
Anglesea2037], website [anglesea2037.com]
by the project team. This process identified community members also present (see
and public posters) to explore how alternative
common themes and synergies between Appendix 6). In each workshop participants
modes of communication would affect
community propositions and integrated explored ingredients and conditions needed
feedback. Results were collected through
these into coherent concepts and narratives for the visions to develop, identified barriers
online comments and via conversations with
of the future. Narratives described how to these conditions and suggested leverage
members of both towns’ communities (see
the proposals built resilience in their local opportunities to overcome challenges.
Appendix 7).
context and were augmented with a visual
illustration prepared by professional designers.
Outcomes were presented to a small forum
of experts from emergency management,
community development and climate change
adaptation for comment.2.3 Design principles for building local resilience
Resilience is a vaguely defined and often Modularity: Autonomous Impact avoidance:
contested concept. This presents a challenge building blocks that Minimising exposure to
when working collaboratively with diverse augment each other. hazards.
groups. In research interviews, people’s
• Build capacity in incremental modules. • Identify which places, functions and assets
concept of resilience often described a
that are not exposed and ask why?
community or agency’s ability to respond • Make sure module failure isn’t contagious.
and recover from natural hazards quickly. • Identify decisions that have led to exposure.
• Build networks that work across scales
Many community residents also focused on Why were they taken?
(individual, neighbourhood, regional).
purely psychological aspects of resilience (and
• Consider…how could mitigating one risk
also emphasised recovery). As the visioning • Find new ways to share (information and
act to exacerbate others?
workshops were focused on pre-emptive resources).
strategies to build resilience, the project
team developed the following set of design
Rapid feedback: These symbols will be used later to explain
principles and framing questions to guide
Consequences of actions benefits of community visions in section 3.2.
workshop participants.
and changes are detected
and responded to quickly.
= Diversity
Diversity: Not everything is • Build awareness to new hazards – using
affected equally. different ‘channels’.
• Find different ways to meet the same • Consider…how long will it take to know = Redundancy
outcome. what the consequences of an action are?
• Find solutions that aren’t vulnerable to the • Consider…who needs to talk to each other
same hazards. and how are they talking to each other? = Modularity
• Focus on what is being delivered, not how.
What function is essential?
Adaptive capacity: The
= Enhanced feedback
ability to choose how to
prepare and respond.
Redundancy: Spare supply
and functional capacity • Target the allocation of power and capacity
= Adaptive capacity
exists. where vulnerability exists
• Build-in or build-up buffers. • Stress-test – having small failures can help
identify weaknesses
• Create ‘just in case’ options. = Impact avoidance
• Consider…how can knowledge and skills
• Consider…if something runs out where else
be built and shared?
and how else can you get it?
• Consider…what can help people’s ability to
organise?Section 3
RESULTS AND ANALYSISRESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This section begins with a summary of and intensity of extreme events over the next to avoid future impacts over a longer-term
perspectives from the field: selected results 50 years. 68%, (n=41) felt climate change (30-50 years). The most common reasons
from a survey of emergency management would have a major impact on environmental given by respondents were: the design of
and climate change adaptation practitioners. conditions within 50 years. Equal numbers current regulatory requirements, a lack of
Subsequently, the results and analysis also felt organisations would undergo resources, and the separation between
section is broken into four parts. The first significant change as a result of climate planning and response functions within and
– Site assessment, presents a synthesis change within 20 years. 64% (n=41) felt across organisations. Respondents also noted
of outcomes from the visioning workshops communities would change significantly in the that difficulty measuring the value of mitigation
process run in Anglesea and Creswick. This same period. makes it challenging to assess and promote.
is followed by a presentation of future visions
Despite the perception of risk, only 30%
for both towns in the second part. The 5.1%
(n=44) agreed that agencies had a …good
third – Opportunities and barriers for climate 12.8% 20.5%
understanding of the types of impacts society
resilience, presents a synthesis of outcomes
will face from climate change.
from the pathways and barriers workshops. strongly agree
The final part – Process evaluation, looks at “[My] organisation is just starting to look mainly agree
the combined workshop and engagement at climate change adaptation and how this unsure
methods and identifies areas for improvement. intersects with emergency management
mainly disagree
planning - behind the 8-ball basically”
Survey respondent, Local Government, Vic
Perspectives from the 61.5%
field Preparing for future climate extremes As a general rule, there is a disconnect between
the level of risk posed by climate change and the
The survey ran from August to November 83% (n=39) of respondents believed the level level of preparedness and risk management within
of preparedness and risk management within relevant agencies. (n=39)
2013 and collected responses from 48 Fig. 1
emergency management (EM) and climate agencies did not reflect the scale of emerging
change adaptation (CCA) professionals. risks posed by climate extremes (Fig. 1). “Funding is often reactionary... so it’s more
Respondents were primarily Victorian (83%, Results suggest agencies put a much feasible to spend money on response and
n=48) with half (54%) in State Government stronger emphasis on response than recovery (events that have happened)
roles. Local government officers contributed mitigation. 85% (n=44) believed that more than on planning (for events that haven’t
20% of responses. 72% of respondents resources were allocated to response and happened)”
defined themselves as having middle or senior recovery than to planning to avoid future
rank. Survey respondent, State Government, Vic
disaster events. Similarly, a majority (70%,
n=42) agreed with the statement that …most Responses also suggest the need for
organisations (responsible for emergency predictive certainty on future conditions
Perceptions of future conditions planning or climate change adaptation) undermines mitigation. 68% (n=44) of
Almost all respondents (93%, n=44) believed emphasise short-term (5-15 year) asset responses agreed that determining the
climate change would increase the frequency protection strategies over alternatives that aim frequency and size of future extreme weatherYou can also read
