Assessing the suitability of existing spatial data for disaster planning and mitigation in Queensland

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 2003 gave in-principle approval to a best-practice report recommending a holistic approach to managing natural disasters in Australia incorporating a move from a traditional response-centric approach to a greater focus on mitigation, recovery and resilience with community well-being at the core. Since that time, there have been a range of complementary developments that have supported the COAG recommended approach. Developments have been administrative, legislative and technological, both, in reaction to the COAG initiative and resulting from regular natural disasters. This paper reviews the characteristics of the spatial data that is becoming increasingly available at Federal, state and regional jurisdictions with respect to their being fit for the purpose for disaster planning and mitigation and strengthening community resilience. In particular, Queensland foundation spatial data, which is increasingly accessible by the public under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2009, Information Privacy Act 2009, and recent open data reform initiatives are evaluated. The Fitzroy River catchment and floodplain is used as a case study for the review undertaken. The catchment covers an area of 142,545 km2, the largest river catchment flowing to the eastern coast of Australia. The Fitzroy River basin experienced extensive flooding during the 2010–2011 Queensland floods. The basin is an area of important economic, environmental and heritage values and contains significant infrastructure critical for the mining and agricultural sectors, the two most important economic sectors for Queensland State. Consequently, the spatial datasets for this area play a critical role in disaster management and for protecting critical infrastructure essential for economic and community well-being. The foundation spatial datasets are assessed for disaster planning and mitigation purposes using data quality indicators such as resolution, accuracy, integrity, validity and audit trail.

Climate change adaptation for public buildings management : stakeholder roles and responsibilities

Climate change is expected to increase earth’s temperatures and consequently result in more frequent extreme weather events such as cyclones, storms, droughts and floods and rising global sea levels. This phenomenon will affect all assets. This paper discusses the impact of climate change and its consequences on public buildings. Public building management encompasses the building life cycle from planning, procurement, operation, repair and maintenance and building disposal. This paper recommends climate change adaptation strategies to be integrated into public building management. The roles and responsibilities of asset managers and users are discussed within the framework of planning and implementation of public building management and the integration of climate change adaptation strategies. A key point is that climate change can induce premature obsolescence of public buildings and services, which will increase the maintenance and refurbishment costs. This in turn will affect the life cycle cost of the building. Furthermore, a business continuity plan is essential for public building management in the context of disasters. The paper also highlights the significant role that the occupants of public buildings can play in the development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies.

Crisis response planning in tunnel and road networks

Critical road infrastructure (such as tunnels and overpasses) is of major significance to society and constitutes major components of interdependent, ‘systems and networks’. Failure in critical components of these wide area infrastructure systems can often result in cascading disturbances with secondary and tertiary impacts - some of which may become initiating sources of failure in their own right, triggering further systems failures across wider networks. Perrow1) considered the impact of our increasing use of technology in high-risk fields, analysing the implications on everyday life and argued that designers of these types of infrastructure systems cannot predict every possible failure scenario nor create perfect contingency plans for operators. Challenges exist for transport system operators in the conceptualisation and implementation of response and subsequent recovery planning for significant events. Disturbances can vary from reduced traffic flow causing traffic congestion throughout the local road network(s) and subsequent possible loss of income to businesses and industry to a major incident causing loss of life or complete loss of an asset. Many organisations and institutions, despite increasing recognition of the effects of crisis events, are not adequately prepared to manage crises2). It is argued that operators of land transport infrastructure are in a similar category of readiness given the recent instances of failures in road tunnels. These unexpected infrastructure failures, and their ultimately identified causes, suggest there is significant room for improvement. As a result, risk profiles for road transport systems are often complex due to the human behaviours and the inter-mix of technical and organisational components and the managerial coverage needed for the socio-technical components and the physical infrastructure. In this sense, the span of managerial oversight may require new approaches to asset management that combines the notion of risk and continuity management. This paper examines challenges in the planning of response and recovery practices of owner/operators of transport systems (above and below ground) in Australia covering: • Ageing or established infrastructure; and • New-build infrastructure. With reference to relevant international contexts this paper seeks to suggest options for enhancing the planning and practice for crisis response in these transport networks and as a result support the resilience of Critical Infrastructure.