Natural hazards and land use planning: How resilient must a landowner be?

The past decade has seen an increase in the occurrence of natural hazards and the experience in Australia has led to a reconsideration of the planning for natural hazards by government and to the adoption of a whole-of-nation resilience-based approach to disaster management. A key component of creating community resilience is the integration of disaster management with government and community strategic planning in relation to the social, built, economic and natural environments. Joint responsibility of government and the community for ‘land use planning systems and building control arrangements [which] reduce, as far as is practicable, community exposure to unreasonable risks from known hazards’, is a critical element of a resilient community. As the responsibility for the implementation of land use planning policies in Australia is generally with local governments, this paper will examine whether, in light of improved predictive technology, the failure of a local government to adequately foresee and make provision for a known hazard will give rise to liability for damage or loss of property caused by that hazard.

A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning

Scenario planning is a method widely used by strategic planners to address uncertainty about the future. However, current methods either fail to address the future behaviour and impact of stakeholders or they treat the role of stakeholders informally. We present a practical decision-analysis-based methodology for analysing stakeholder objectives and likely behaviour within contested unfolding futures. We address issues of power, interest, and commitment to achieve desired outcomes across a broad stakeholder constituency. Drawing on frameworks for corporate social responsibility (CSR), we provide an illustrative example of our approach to analyse a complex contested issue that crosses geographic, organisational and cultural boundaries. Whilst strategies can be developed by individual organisations that consider the interests of others – for example in consideration of an organisation's CSR agenda – we show that our augmentation of scenario method provides a further, nuanced, analysis of the power and objectives of all concerned stakeholders across a variety of unfolding futures. The resulting modelling framework is intended to yield insights and hence more informed decision making by individual stakeholders or regulators.

Integration of Geospatial and Built Environment - National Data Policy

Digital technology offers enormous benefits (economic, quality of design and efficiency in use) if adopted to implement integrated ways of representing the physical world in a digital form. When applied across the full extent of the built and natural world, it is referred to as the Digital Built Environment (DBE) and encompasses a wide range of approaches and technology initiatives, all aimed at the same end goal: the development of a virtual world that sufficiently mirrors the real world to form the basis for the smart cities of the present and future, enable efficient infrastructure design and programmed maintenance, and create a new foundation for economic growth and social well-being through evidence-based analysis. The creation of a National Data Policy for the DBE will facilitate the creation of additional high technology industries in Australia; provide Governments, industries and citizens with greater knowledge of the environments they occupy and plan; and offer citizen-driven innovations for the future. Australia has slipped behind other nations in the adoption and execution of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and the principal concern is that the gap is widening. Data driven innovation added $67 billion to the Australian economy in 20131. Strong open data policy equates to $16 billion in new value2. Australian Government initiatives such as the Digital Earth inspired “National Map” offer a platform and pathway to embrace the concept of a “BIM Globe”, while also leveraging unprecedented growth in open source / open data collaboration. Australia must address the challenges by learning from international experiences—most notably the UK and NZ—and mandate the use of BIM across Government, extending the Framework for Spatial Data Foundation to include the Built Environment as a theme and engaging collaboration through a “BIM globe” metaphor. This proposed DBE strategy will modernise the Australian urban planning and the construction industry. It will change the way we develop our cities by fundamentally altering the dynamics and behaviours of the supply chains and unlocking new and more efficient ways of collaborating at all stages of the project life-cycle. There are currently two major modelling approaches that contribute to the challenge of delivering the DBE. Though these collectively encompass many (often competing) approaches or proprietary software systems, all can be categorised as either: a spatial modelling approach, where the focus is generally on representing the elements that make up the world within their geographic context; and a construction modelling approach, where the focus is on models that support the life cycle management of the built environment. These two approaches have tended to evolve independently, addressing two broad industry sectors: the one concerned with understanding and managing global and regional aspects of the world that we inhabit, including disciplines concerned with climate, earth sciences, land ownership, urban and regional planning and infrastructure management; the other is concerned with planning, design, construction and operation of built facilities and includes architectural and engineering design, product manufacturing, construction, facility management and related disciplines (a process/technology commonly known as Building Information Modelling, BIM). The spatial industries have a strong voice in the development of public policy in Australia, while the construction sector, which in 2014 accounted for around 8.5% of Australia’s GDP3, has no single voice and because of its diversity, is struggling to adapt to and take advantage of the opportunity presented by these digital technologies. The experience in the UK over the past few years has demonstrated that government leadership is very effective in stimulating industry adoption of digital technologies by, on the one hand, mandating the use of BIM on public procurement projects while at the same time, providing comparatively modest funding to address the common issues that confront the industry in adopting that way of working across the supply chain. The reported result has been savings of £840m in construction costs in 2013/14 according to UK Cabinet Office figures4. There is worldwide recognition of the value of bringing these two modelling technologies together. Australia has the expertise to exercise leadership in this work, but it requires a commitment by government to recognise the importance of BIM as a companion methodology to the spatial technologies so that these two disciplinary domains can cooperate in the development of data policies and information exchange standards to smooth out common workflows. buildingSMART Australasia, SIBA and their academic partners have initiated this dialogue in Australia and wish to work collaboratively, with government support and leadership, to explore the opportunities open to us as we develop an Australasian Digital Built Environment. As part of that programme, we must develop and implement a strategy to accelerate the adoption of BIM processes across the Australian construction sector while at the same time, developing an integrated approach in concert with the spatial sector that will position Australia at the forefront of international best practice in this area. Australia and New Zealand cannot afford to be on the back foot as we face the challenges of rapid urbanisation and change in the global environment. Although we can identify some exemplary initiatives in this area, particularly in New Zealand in response to the need for more resilient urban development in the face of earthquake threats, there is still much that needs to be done. We are well situated in the Asian region to take a lead in this challenge, but we are at imminent risk of losing the initiative if we do not take action now. Strategic collaboration between Governments, Industry and Academia will create new jobs and wealth, with the potential, for example, to save around 20% on the delivery costs of new built assets, based on recent UK estimates.

Sustainability at the Australian local government level: Is there room for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)?

Recent calls in Australia have addressed the need for better integration of planning processes. The consequent effort made by government has been, and still is, reshaping the way urban and regional planning and sustainability are managed. Focusing on planning practices at the local and regional levels, we investigate how environmental sustainability is pursued from an institutional perspective. Specifically, we analyse the way that planning in Australian cities aims to achieve sustainable strategies and reflect on the relationship with ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’. This paper has four goals. First, sustainable planning practices at the local and regional levels are analysed considering the legislative and organizational frameworks of each state. The goal is to identify through an analysis of planning documents how much discretion is given to local councils to address sustainable strategies. Second, we focus on two regional and four cities in Queensland, to outline strengths and weaknesses of current legislative and practical frameworks. We use analytical criteria from the SEA literature to investigate these plans in more detail. Third, we examine the relationship between strategic and statutory plans, to see how sustainability is actually implemented. Finally we compare emerging issues about sustainable planning in Australia with countries overseas with different planning and SEA traditions. Considering that SEA is evolving and there are considerable international experiences, we offer recommendations on how Australia might achieve a more integrated and sustainable approach to planning.

Supporting mindful planners in a mindless system: Limitations to the emotional turn in planning practice

Despite widespread acknowledgment within planning scholarship that emotion – both present in knowledge and a form of knowledge – is integral to lived experience and the judgement of planners, it is often sidelined within planning practice. The extent to which mainstream planning has been able or willing to accommodate emotions remains constrained and the emotions of planners and the public remain an unacknowledged but pervasive presence. Antonio Ferreira recently highlighted in this journal the importance of attending to emotions at the level of the individual planner through the concept of mindfulness. We argue this approach must be complemented by an acknowledgement of the structural and institutional limitations of including emotions in planning practice. Drawing from the emotional geographies literature to describe a social-spatial conceptualisation of emotion, we highlight ontological and practical tensions associated with the achievement of the ‘emotional turn’ and advance a more purposeful engagement with emotion in mainstream planning practice.

Planning the unplanned City: The story of the gold coast

One of the distinctive features of Gold Coast urbanisation is its historically ad hoc approach to development with little or no strategic planning to guide it. Many have commented on the lack of planning on the Gold Coast calling it ‘an experiment in freedom’ or ‘free enterprise city’. Following a major restructuring of the Queensland’s local councils, the 1990s witnessed a shift from ad hoc decision making to more systematic planning on the Gold Coast. Understanding the past is important for shaping the future. This paper reviews the history of regulatory planning on the Gold Coast, encompassing decisions affecting the form and development of its earliest settlements through to its periods of greatest construction and most streamlined decision–making. It focuses mainly on past planning processes, the problems identified in each planning exercise and the interventions introduced, asking whether these were implemented or not and why. The paper positions the Gold Coast as a physical embodiment of this history of decision making, assessing the effects on the city as a whole of specific measures either affording freedoms or insisting on accountability to various levels of regulation. It examines how the absence of some planning measures influenced the form of the city and its internal arrangements and considers how the shift from ad hoc decision making towards more systematic planning efforts affected the city’s urbanisation. The lessons that the Gold Coast example provides will resonate with places elsewhere in Australia and the world, if not always in scale definitely in substance.