1

Disaster Risk Management

From a Remote Shire’s Perspective

By
David Ireland

November 2001-11-16

Centre for Disaster Studies

Centre for Tropical Urban and Regional Planning
School of Tropical Environment Studies and
Geography
James Cook University
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the help as assistance of many
people. In particular, I would like to thank the following:
Doug Goudie, Centre of Disaster Studies James Cook University (JCU).
Linda Anderson-Berry, Centre of Disaster Studies JCU.
David King, Centre of Disaster Studies JCU., Tom Craig, McKinlay Shire Council
Todd Rohl, Thuringowa City Council, Sandy Vigar,
Environmental Resource Management Australia
Michael Greenslade and Katherine Jack JCU.
Annette, Peter, Kellie, Daniel and Graham.
I would also like to thank the following organisations for their support and
contributions to this project:
Department of Tropical Environmental Studies and Geography, JCU
Centre of Disaster Studies, JCU, McKinlay Shire Council
Thuringowa City Council, McKinlay Community Members
Emergency Management Australia

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 4
2 COMMUNITY INVOVLEMENT IN DISASTER RISK MANAGMENT................... 6
2.1 Disaster Risk Management .................................................................................... 6
2.2 Community Involvement in Disaster Management ................................................ 7
2.3 Top Down and Participative Approaches to Community Involvement in Disaster
Risk Management........................................................................................................ 10
2.4 Achieving Effective Community Involvement in Disaster Risk Management...... 15
3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Queensland Department of Emergency Services Disaster Risk Management
Process........................................................................................................................ 17
3.2 McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Process .......................................... 19
3.2.1 Location............................................................................................................. 19
3.2.2 Demographics................................................................................................... 24
3.2.3 Infrastructure Description ................................................................................. 25
3.2.4 Natural Hazards................................................................................................ 25
3.3 McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study Methodology ........................ 25
3.4 Study Methodology............................................................................................... 28
4 RESULTS............................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Consultation Methodology.................................................................................... 29
4.2 Effectiveness of Consultation Methodology ......................................................... 29
 3
4.2.1 Surveys and Interviews .................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 Effectiveness of Surveys and Interviews.......................................................... 30
4.2.3 Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops................................................. 30
4.2.4 Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Impact reduction workshops ........................ 31
4.2.4.1 Attendance .................................................................................................... 31
4.2.4.2 Advertising .................................................................................................... 32
4.2.4.3 Loss of Ownership of past Workshops......................................................... 32
4.2.4.4 Individual Resilience ..................................................................................... 33
4.2.4.5 Workshops Location ..................................................................................... 33
4.2.4.6 Duration of Workshops ................................................................................. 34
4.2.4.7 Workshop Structure ...................................................................................... 34
4.2.4.8 Group Size .................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Issues for Disaster Managers and Consultants................................................... 35
4.3.1 Local Government Support............................................................................... 35
4.3.2 Local Government Resources.......................................................................... 35
4.3.3 Community Loss of Ownership ........................................................................ 36
4.3.4 Local Resilience................................................................................................ 36
4.4 Recommendations for Remote Shire Disaster Risk Management Study Designs
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..38
4.5 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 40
5 INCORPORATING DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT INTO SHIRE PLANNING
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..43
5.1 Land use Planning for Diaster Management ....................................................... 43
5.2 State Planning Policy on Land Use planning for Natural Disaster Mitigation and
Development Assessment........................................................................................... 45
5.3 IPA Planning Schemes......................................................................................... 46
5.4 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 47
6 DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND REMOTE SHIRE PLANNING............ 49
7 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 51
8 APPENDICIES ..................................................................................................... 57
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (10)
Figure 2. Queensland Disaster Risk Management Structure (17)
Figure 3. McKinlay Shire Map (20)
Figure 4. McKinlay Shire Population Data (24)
Figure 5. McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Process (27)
Figure 6. Workshop Attendance Figures (31)
 4
1 INTRODUCTION

Natural diasters such as floods, bushfires, cyclones and severe storms are very
much part of the natural workings of the earth and are not problems in and of
themselves (Geis 1996). However, these hazard events do become a problem when
they impact on human settlements. The severity of the impacts associated with a
natural disaster event are greatly affected by the built human environment and our
settlement patterns.

In response to this, definitions of ‘disaster’ generally contain reference to their

associated human impacts. The Queensland Department of Emergency Services,
Disaster Risk Management Guidelines define a diaster, as a catastrophic event that
severely disrupts the fabric of a community and requires the intervention of various
levels of government to return the community to normality (Zamecka & Buchanan
2000).

It is at this interface between natural disasters and the human environment where
potential for management and mitigation of disaster risks can be found. While
traditional disaster treatment activities have focused on response and recovery,
recent developments in the field have increasingly leaned towards management and
mitigation. This shift is the result by research indicating that proactive actions are
vital to achieving a reduction in community vulnerability, maximising safety and
minimising the economic impacts of disaster events.

Disaster Risk Management is a systematic process that produces a range of

measures that contribute to the well-being of communities and the environment. The
process considers the likely effects of hazardous events and the measures by which
they can be minimised (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000). One of the main components
of Disaster Risk Management is community consultation. The Yokohama Message,
presented at the halfway point of the International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction, indicated that community involvement allowed valuable insights into
individual and collective perceptions of risk and development and allowed
researchers to understand the cultural and organisational characteristics of the study
area (UN Chronicle 1994).

The Department of Emergency Services Disaster Risk Management Guidelines

(herein referred to as the Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines) are
Queensland’s accepted framework for the preparation of Disaster Risk Management
Strategies. These guidelines also place a great emphasis on achieving effective
 5
community involvement as it enhances community understanding of risk, increases
active participation and acknowledges the conflicting values involved in the decision
making process (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).

This study involves the examination of the Disaster Risk Management Strategy
prepared for the McKinlay Shire located in Central Western Queensland. The main
focus of the study is a review of the effectiveness of the community consultation
strategy adopted utilised in the McKinlay study and an examination of the
applicability of the Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines to a remote
Shire. Included in this was the identification and description of the issues that relate
to consultation strategies used during the preparation of a Disaster Risk
Management Strategy for a remote Shire. The second part of the study focused on
an examination of the opportunities for remote Shires to incorporate Disaster Risk
Management into Local Government planning.

To examine the current community involvement methodologies used in the

preparation of Disaster Risk Management Strategies, and to establish best practices,
a literature review was conducted and is included in this thesis as Chapter 2. The
methodology prescribed in the Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines,
background information, and the methodology adopted by the McKinlay Shire Study
have been described in Chapter 3. This chapter also contains a description of the
methodologies used in this study to achieve the research aims.

The analysis of the effectiveness of the McKinlay Shire consultation strategy and the
applicability of the Queensland Disaster Risk Management guidelines are reported in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 is concerned with an examination of the possibilities that could
be utilised to incorporate Disaster Risk Management into Shire planning. The final
chapter provides a general discussion concerning the role of Shire planning in the
adoption and implementation of Disaster Risk Management outcomes and the
constraints and opportunities that are present in a remote Shire.
 6

2 COMMUNITY INVOVLEMENT IN DISATER RISK MANAGMENT

2.1 Disaster Risk Management

Disaster Risk Management is a systematic process that produces a range of

measures that contribute to the well being of communities and the environment. The
process considers the likely effects of hazardous events and the measures by which
they can be minimised (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).

Disaster Risk Management studies can result in a variety of actions that can be used
to reduce community vulnerability and lessen the impacts of hazard events.
Lichterman (2000) describes three disaster mitigation techniques: hard, soft and
community mitigation resources. Hard mitigation involves the construction of the built
environment in such a way that it withstands the impacts of hazard events with little
human intervention. This may include engineering modifications to waterways, the
application of building standards, the provision of fire suppression systems,
uninterruptable power supplies and on-site emergency systems.

Soft mitigation is associated with emergency preparedness or response in the wake

of a hazard event. This includes activities such as fire suppression, sandbagging,
search and rescue, the provision of first aid, emergency care and emergency shelter
(ibid). Soft mitigation reduces the effects of disasters that can not be alleviated by
hard mitigation.

Community mitigation resources involve the training and education of community

members to act in such a way that reduces community vulnerability to hazards and
provides positive assistance during post disaster response and recovery.
Community mitigation includes awareness raising activities, emergency training by
police, fire and mental health services, as well as community based disaster action
groups (ibid).

Changes in attitudes towards the management and mitigation of disaster events has
also occurred over the past 30 years with a shift in focus from recovery and response
to management and mitigation. The Queensland discussion paper for the State
Planning Policy on Land Use Planning for Natural Disaster Mitigation (2001)
indicates that over the last 25 years, Australia has on average, experienced a major
disaster event every four years. These have included Cyclone Tracey, The Ash
 7

Wednesday Fires, The Newcastle Earthquake, The Thredbo landslide and major
flooding in Brisbane, Nyngan, Charleville, Katherine and Benalla (Queensland Dept
Emergency Services 2001). Hodges (1996) supports the idea that one of the major
catalysts for change in Australian attitudes can be attributed in part to a number of
these earlier disaster events in the 1970s, in particular, the Brisbane floods (1974)
and Cyclone Tracy (1974).

Historical records show that Queensland is more disaster prone than other states
with regular storms, cyclones, bushfires and flooding events (Queensland
Department Emergency Services 2001). In response to the number and severity of
these hazards the Queensland Government released the State Counter Disaster
Organisation Act, 1975 that required all local governments to prepare a Local
Counter Disaster Plan to deal with all counter disaster measures and establish a
local emergency service. The State Counter Disaster Organisation Act, 1975 was
still primarily focused on response and recovery but allowed enough scope within the
counter disaster plans for some local governments to incorporate some mitigation
aspects.

International recognition of the possible benefits that could be achieved by adopting a

proactive approach to Disaster Management and Mitigation received a boost with the
United Nations declaring 1990 – 2000 the International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction (IDNDR). The purpose of the decade was to marshal the political resolve,
experience and expertise of each country to reduce loss of life, human suffering and
economic losses from natural hazards (UNESCO Courier 1997).

One of the principal themes to come out of the decade included the need to adopt a
more proactive approach to disaster management than had occurred in the past.
This required a shift in focus form disaster response and recovery to management
and mitigation. The IDNDR also highlighted that a high level of community
involvement is of fundamental importance to the success of disaster management
activities.

2.2 Community Involvement in Disaster Management

Community participation is one of the underlying principles of democratic societies

(Butler et al 1999). In recent years, recognition of the importance of community
involvement and participation in many streams of environmental policy has steadily
 8

increased (Fordham 1999). The recent emphasis placed on the need for effective
community involvement and increased awareness of its potential benefits has been
stimulated through a variety of international actions such as the United Nations
Conferences and inter-governmental agreements.

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development called for,
among other things, greater involvement of local communities in achieving
sustainable development and placed an emphasised on the need for a greater level
of public participation and involvement in the decision making process (Dover 1998).
The subsequent documentation generated from the Conference, The Rio Declaration
and Agenda 21 Action Plans for Sustainable Development demonstrated continued
support for an increase in the level of community involvement in environmental policy
(Fordham 1999).

The Local Agenda 21 program also enhanced community involvement in Australian

environmental policy. The program was aimed at implementing sustainable
development initiatives at the local level (Environment Australia 2001). The program
is comprised of systems and process that can be used to integrate environmental,
economic and social factors with development. Some of the key outcomes proposed
in the document indicated a movement towards enhancing community participation
through policies such as; developing stronger partnerships between communities and
local authorities, integrated decision making and ongoing community involvement in
the resolution of sustainable development issues (Environment Australia 2001).

These international movements prepared a base for the integration of community

involvement in Australian environmental policy. Recent legislation and national
strategies such as the National Strategy For Ecological Sustainable Development,
the Integrated Planning Act, 1997 (Qld) and Environmental Protection Act,1994 (Qld)
have provided guidance and statutory requirements for community involvement in
environmental policy and development issues.

The importance of community involvement and community-based approaches to

disaster management and mitigation is now widely acknowledged. The Yokohama
Message presented in May 1994 at the halfway point of the IDNDR indicated that
community involvement should be encouraged as an essential part of effective
disaster management. The message highlighted that effective community
involvement allowed insights into individual and collective perception of development
 9

and risk, achieved an increased understanding of the cultural and organisational

characteristics of each society, as well as giving researchers the ability examine
human behaviour and interactions with their physical environment (UN Chronicle
1994).

Similarly, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’
Policy for Disaster Preparedness also indicates a need for community involvement to
ensure that disaster management is sensitive to the community’s gender and age
distribution, generation and vulnerability, and, adequately addresses the community’s
actual needs (Goodyear 2000).

The Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines also places great emphasis
on achieving effective communication with the community. The guidelines define
effective community communication as a process that enhances community
understanding of risks, increases active community participation in debates about
risks, and acknowledges the conflicting values in decision making under conditions of
uncertainty (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).

At the most basic level, community involvement is important to gain an understanding

of the basic profile and structure of the community. Ferrier (1999) notes that just as
every individual is different, every community, whether large or small is also different.
In order to effectively manage, and meet the needs of a community during a disaster
event it is important to understand the composition of the community. Although basic
population profiles can be achieved through demographic analysis of census data,
community involvement techniques should be used in conjunction with the analysis to
develop a clearer understanding of cultural and social factors.

Buckle (2000) indicates that there is a need for disaster managers and consultants to
engage with the community and recognise the values of involvement as an integral
part of effective disaster management. Community involvement measures should
cover a range of issues including; the development and implementation of
emergency management procedures, public contribution to disaster policy and
programs, monitoring the progress of community services and the provision of mutual
aid (Buckle 2000).

Support in the literature indicates that effective community involvement should occur
early in the decision making process (Kasperson 1986 Bruton 1980 in Fordham
 10

1999, Zamecka & Buchanan 2000). In this fashion, community involvement should
occur before any major decisions have been made and before any options are
excluded from the study. Research has also shown that a lack of collected
information at early stages of the study process can create confusion and limit the
effectiveness of the consultation process (McNab 1997 & Kasperson 1986 in
Fordham 1999).

2.3 Top Down and Participative Approaches to Community Involvement in

Disaster Risk Management

While there is wide support in the literature describing community involvement as an

integral part of effective disaster risk management, the approach to involvement and
the extent to which the community should paly a part in the construction of policy or
management strategies has long been a topic of debate. Arnstein’s “Ladder of
Citizen Participation”, first published in 1969 has provided the foundation for analysis
of the community participatory techniques. The eight rungs of the ladder ranges from
total citizen control through to manipulation of the public. This simplified illustration
demonstrates the gradations of citizen participation through techniques of complete
citizen power, tokenism and non-participation.

Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

8 Citizen Control
7 Delegated power Degree of Citizen Power
6 Partnership
5 Placation
4 Consultation Degree of Tokenism
3 Informing
2 Therapy Non-participation
1 manipulation

Source: Arnstein 1969

The push for greater levels of community involvement in environmental policy,

including disaster risk management can be attributed in part to the series of
international events that brought the community to the forefront of environmental
 11

policy. The push for increased participation in disaster management can also be
attributed to the fact that one of the defining elements of a disaster is that they inflict
some degree of pain and suffering on individuals, even when there is no damage or
loss of physical infrastructure (Buckle 1996). These human impacts associated with
disasters have increased community concern and heightened community awareness,
which has created the need for more comprehensive community involvement in the
disaster management process.

There are two main approaches used to achieve community involvement in disaster
risk management: top down approaches and participatory approaches. It can be
seen that these approaches, in their purest form, represent the alternate ends of
Arnstein’s ladder (Mitchell 1998, Twigg 1999, Fordham 1999). Mitchell (1998)
describes top down approaches as the imposition of objectives on communities that
are established by decision-makers without meaningful consultation. Adopting a
solely top down approach to community involvement in disaster risk management
has been criticised as it generally involves a greater concentration of authority,
narrowly prescribed levels of discretion, a reliance on hierarchy and the imposition of
managerial performance standards (Mitchell 1998). Twigg (1999) also notes that top
down approaches may be susceptible to manipulation by political interests, are often
inefficient and may lead to an increase in community vulnerability. In spite of these
limitations, studies by McDonald (1999) indicate that the scope of participation in
environmental policy is often limited to rubber-stamping or, at best, fine-tuning of
predetermined government positions. Some examples of top down techniques that
may be used in disaster risk management include sample surveys, interviews, and
public information presentations.

The participatory approach to community involvement generally requires a greater

degree of citizen power and control within the decision making process. Adopting a
participatory approach to community involvement allows the public a greater ability to
affect the aims, objectives and outcome of disaster management in their area
(Fordham 1999). Participatory techniques that may be employed in disaster risk
management activities include, community working groups, community reference
groups, workshops, public discussions, dialogue and submissions.

Traditionally, mechanisms to facilitate community involvement in disaster

management have been rigid, command and control or “Top Down” methodologies.
Fordham (1999) notes that due to the often complex nature of diaster management,
 12

past strategies have often relied heavily on expert opinion which has created a gap
between the community and disaster management professionals. This gap was
generated through the opinions of technical experts who perceived that the nature of
disaster management was too complex to involve the general public. The problem
was further exacerbated by the members of the general public who felt ill equipped to
discuss or provide comment on work prepared by experts (McDonald 1999). As a
result of this situation, past disaster management strategies have been criticised for
being ineffective in responding to the community’s actual needs and achieving their
desired management outcomes (Maskrey 1989 in Twigg 1999).

Other criticisms of top down approaches relate to the possible influence of political
pressures, inefficiencies in the use of resources and the possibility that adopting this
approach may contribute to an increase in community vulnerability (Twigg 1999).
Fordham (1999) also notes that Top down approaches and poorly designed
participation mechanisms can lead to an unacceptable polarisation of the
community’s views.

The failure of community participation efforts in the past may also be the result of the
attitudes of key players towards community involvement in disaster management.
Twigg (1999) highlights that State agencies, government departments, non-
government organisations, and disaster professionals are likely to be bureaucratic in
structure and system, inflexible in their thinking and actions and still wedded to
obsolete theories. The introduction of these political dimensions and agendas can
severely hinder the resources devoted to community involvement, and limit the
influence the public may have on the management process.

In spite of the support shown in the literature for participative approaches to

community involvement in disaster management, practice generally lags behind
theory. Top down consultation where a chosen option is promoted to the public with
little ability to accept or reject management actions is still common (Twigg 1999,
Fordham 1999). Pagram (1998) argues that the delivery of disaster services that
better meet the needs of the community will require shifts in emergency service
management and service provision from these traditional methodologies.

This call for change in the approach to community involvement is echoed through
research that has demonstrated that top down practices are less beneficial than the
adoption of a more participative approach involving greater improvisation and
 13

flexibility (Mitchell 1998, Salter 1996). At the crux of these methodologies is the need
for community partnerships, high levels off communication, and an increased role of
the community within the decision-making process.

There are a variety of benefits associated with the adoption of a participatory

approach to community involvement in disaster risk management. These benefits
have received much attention in the literature and driven recent moves towards
incorporating a higher degree of community participation. Firstly, the adoption of a
participatory approach to community involvement gives disaster managers an
effective tool to gauge an understanding of today’s communities, which differ greatly
from traditional views of community. Traditional views of a ‘community’ give the
image of a homogenous group of people living in a defined area with a stable set of
interactions that are spatially referenced (Boughton 1998, Buckle 1996, Twigg 1999).
This view of communities has changed as a result of increasingly mobile populations,
more frequent changes in occupation, increasing migration and technological
advances in communication and travel (Buckle 1996). Research that has sought to
define ‘today’s’ communities for emergency management have demonstrated that
professional association, lifestyle choices, occupation, shared experiences should be
used to define communities as well as their spatial aspects (Buckle 1996, Boughton
1998).

Because of these changes, traditional top down approaches to disaster management

may not adequately address the vulnerability, needs and define the social and
cultural constructs that are present in each individual community. Adopting a
participatory approach that involves dialogue and a higher level of interaction with
members of the public, allows the researcher to clearly define who the community is
and identify exactly who the vulnerable are (Buckle 2000).

One of the most commonly argued benefits of community involvement in disaster

management is that any form of participation raises awareness which in turn,
reduces risks and the populations vulnerability (Twigg 1999, Burby et al 1999, Soste
& Glass 1996). Beck (1994) supports the notion that the first step in disaster
preparedness must be to increase community awareness of their vulnerability to
disaster. Rouhban (1997) also supports this view indicating that educating and
informing the public is a permanent measure of paramount importance in reducing
community vulnerability to disaster events.
 14

Through heightened awareness of potential dangers, the community is more likely to

adequately prepare for disasters. The Queensland Disaster Risk Management
Guidelines highlight that community involvement helps to increase understanding of
hazards and their consequences which can be helpful to people coping with disasters
when they occur (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000). The potential benefits and
importance of awareness raising community involvement techniques are further
highlighted by Australian studies that have demonstrated inadequate levels of
awareness and preparedness for predictable and regular hazards events such as
floods and cyclones (King 1999, Skertchly & Skertchly 2000).

Soste (1996) demonstrates that disaster education programs and community

involvement within the management process can contribute to a greater
understanding, awareness and response to warning systems that can lead to the
creation of a more prepared community and result in a substantial reduction
vulnerability.

Along with raising awareness of risks and community vulnerability, participatory

community involvement can also create a sense of community ownership of disaster
management and mitigation programs. Work by Burby et al (1999) indicates that
effective community involvement can contribute to the creation of a base of citizen
support for disaster mitigation and management actions. The Queensland Disaster
Risk Management Guidelines also indicated that effective community participation
can aid in the development of personal roles and responsibilities within management
tasks as well as contributing to a sense of community ownership of the outcomes of
the disaster risk management process (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).

Post disaster analysis by Scanlon (1996), indicates that although formal government
and emergency services do play a significant role in disaster planning and response,
in the wake of a disaster event, the response actions and needs are met by the
community and not formal organisations. In such cases, search, rescue, medical
treatment, evacuation and transportation to hospitals is performed by individuals,
family members and neighbours. Participatory approaches and the development of
individual roles and responsibilities can aid in the formation of more cohesive and
effective response among the local community who are first on the scene.

In the wake of the Ash Wednesday fires, spontaneously created local committees
were formed that performed the initial search and rescue tasks, administered medical
 15

assistance and provided emergency shelter. In the later stages of disaster response
and recovery, these committees proved to be an effective mechanism to aid formal
disaster workers in the distribution of resources and aided communication between
locals and the Government regarding recovery actions, management options and the
explanation policies (Buckle 1996).

The formation and benefits of local response teams in this example highlights the
possibility of effective response and post disaster management at a ground level.
Effective community involvement can actively establish such response groups,
reinforce emergency training, enhance local organisation and help prepare those
people who are first on the scene in the wake of a disaster event (Scanlon 1996,
Zamecka & Buchanon 2000).

Adequate levels of community involvement also allow the community to express their
real needs and priorities in the case of a disaster event and explicitly discuss
services provision and aid requirements. Community involvement is also a method
of gaining insight into the local environment and the wealth of local knowledge that
may have been dealing with disaster events for generations.

2.4 Achieving Effective Community Involvement in Disaster Risk Management

In spite of the support shown in the literature for the adoption of a more participative
approach to community involvement in disaster risk management, practice has
generally lagged behind theory and top down approaches are still common. One of
the main reasons for this is that effective community participation is inherently hard to
achieve. As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of communities has changed from
a homogenous and spatially referenced group of people to a more mobile and
diverse population that is comprised of a dynamic mix of different subgroups and
attitudes (Buckle 1996, Twigg 1999). Buckland & Rahman (1999) argue that
communities defined by high levels of social capital (that is a wide diversity of groups
and opinions) decision making processes are more complicated, expensive and
harder to implement.

Studies have attributed the reliance on top down approaches to their speed, cheaper
costs and simplicity of results when compared to participatory studies (Twigg 1999,
Fordham 1999, Parkes 2000). Top down approaches have been used to complete
 16

consultation requirements with community members at the expense of effective

dialogue with community members and a thorough examination of the diversity of
opinions within a community (McDonald 1999).

To gain the benefits form the adoption of a participatory approach to community

involvement, more expensive and time consuming techniques must be employed.
Twigg (1999) suggests that successful community involvement in disaster
management requires time, money and effort, particularly in building trust between
communities and outsiders. Participatory methods such as increasing dialogue and
discussion between disaster managers and the community are receiving attention as
a method to increase the effectiveness of community participation efforts. Dialogue
involves not just an increase in education and awareness, but the chance for
community stakeholders to be able to ask questions and be involved in discussion
and debate of all issues.

For community involvement to be an effective part of disaster risk management a

flexible and balanced approach is required. Young (1998) writes that practical
approaches disaster risk management should build on both the technical know-how
of professionals and the knowledge and perceptions of risk among the community.
The establishment of disaster management plans that ignore local knowledge,
political structures, cultural institutions, levels of awareness, local priorities and
vulnerability are likely to be ineffective in achieving a sustainable management
outcome at the local level. Similarly, purely participative approaches based solely on
local knowledge and priorities are unlikely to produce effective management results
(Young 1998).

The key to achieving the balance needed to gain effective community involvement in
disaster risk management is the adoption of a flexible approach incorporating
professional advice and active dialogue with the community members. Developing
relationships with the community and actively engaging them in the disaster
management process allows an insight into the cultural and social make up that
make each community unique.
 17

3 METHODOLOGY

The broad study design adopted by the McKinlay Shire for the Disaster Risk
Management Strategy closely followed the Queensland Disaster Risk Management
guidelines. This provides the opportunity to examine the effectiveness of both the
community consultation adopted by the McKinlay Shire as well as the broader policy
and guidelines.

3.1 Queensland Department of Emergency Services Disaster Risk Management

Process

The Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines provide a broad process for
consultants and local governments to follow when conducting a Disaster Risk
Management study. This structure is shown in the following figure and discussed
below

Figure 2. Queensland Disaster Risk Management Structure

Source: Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines 2000

 18

?? Establish The Context

The first stage of the process involves the description of the scope and nature of the
study as well as outlining the range of issues that should be addressed to ensure the
community safety and well being is considered in the process. This stage also
identifies the strategic and organisational issues that are applicable to the process
and the development of the project management framework.

?? Identify Risks

This stage involves the examination of all hazard events with a realistic chance of
occurring within the study area. Compilation and collection of the community and
demographic data is also conducted to determine community needs and aid in the
assessment of vulnerability. The vulnerability of the physical and natural
environmental elements is also be listed and described.

?? Analyse Risks

Involves the determination of the likelihood of the identified natural hazard risks and
the analysis of the possible consequences associated with that event. During this
stage the overall levels of risk for each natural hazard event is determined.

?? Evaluate Risks

Evaluation of risks determines which risks are to be accepted and which risk will
require further treatment. Risk must be prioritised in order of significance to
determine which risks should be treated first.

?? Treatment of Risks

The formulation of appropriate treatment strategies designed for the risks that will be
treated.

?? Communication, Consultation, Monitor and Review

While not one of the 5 main elements of the process, these communication,
consultation, monitoring and review are one of the most important aspects of
 19

successful disaster risk management strategy. They form a part of a feedback loop
that continuously interacts with each of the 5 elements to ensure all issues and
necessary measures have been taken to achieve an adequate level of community
participation.

3.2 McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Process

3.2.1 Location

The McKinlay Shire is located 800km West of the City of Townsville in Central
Queensland. The shire is comprised of 1 main community centre, a number of
smaller settlements and a vast expanse of rural land and properties. Julia Creek, the
shire’s main centre located at the approximate geographical centre of the Shire at the
crossroads of the Flinders and Burke and Wills Highway.

Figure 3. McKinlay Shire Map

(See Overleaf)
20
 21

Photo: Julia Creek Main Street (David Ireland 2001)

Photo: McKinlay Shire Council Depot (David Ireland 2001)

 22

Photo: Eastern View from Julia Creek (David Ireland 2001)

Photo: Road Train (David Ireland 2001)

 23

Photo: Dirt Roads in McKinlay Shire (David Ireland 2001)

Photo: Julia Creek Uniting Church (David Ireland 2001)

 24

3.2.2 Demography

The McKinlay Shire covers an area of 44 000 square kilometres and has an
estimated 2001 population of 1144 people (Goudie 2001). Approximately half the
population is located in the town of Julia Creek while the other half is distributed
among the smaller settlements and rural properties. The Shire has a transient
seasonal population of musterers, jackaroos, branders and other hired hands who
work on the cattle properties during certain times of the year.

The following table was derived from data collected in the 1996 Australian Bureau of
Statistics Census.

Figure 4. McKinlay Shire Population Data

LOCATION POPULATION

Julia Creek 600

McKinlay 30
Kynuna 20
Nelia 10
Rural Properties 515
TOTAL 1175

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996 Census Data

The 1996 census results also indicated that there were 492 households within the
Shire with an average household size of 3.1 persons.

The McKinlay Shire is economically dependent on the cattle industry. However, a

number of other smaller industries are also present in the shire including agricultural
pursuits, mining and some smaller commercial ventures.
 25

3.2.3 Infrastructure Description

Julia Creek acts as one of the major service centres for the shire and is home to a
state primary school, accommodation, council depot, library services, Queensland
Emergency Services facilities, Rural Fire Brigade, small shopping facilities, hospital
and a newsagent.

3.2.4 Natural Hazards

The McKinlay Shire has an average annual rainfall 463mm. Most of this falls during
the summer monsoonal activity. As a result of this, the Shire is faced with periods of
drought and heavy rainfall. The average annual temperatures of the Shires are 170C
minimum and 33.10C maximum. The coldest month of year is July with temperatures
averaging 26.10C with a minimum average of 8.40C. December and February are the
hottest months of the year with highs averaging 38.50C and lows of 23.50C
(Department of Primary Industries 2001).

The McKinlay Shire is faced with a variety of natural disaster events. These events
include:

?? Floods
?? Sandfly infestations following flood events
?? Bushfires
?? Windstorms
?? Severe Heat Waves
?? Severe Cold Snaps
?? Exotic Pest Invasions

3.3 McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study Methodology

The Methodology used in the development of the McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk
Management Strategy was based on the on the structure outlined in the Queensland
Disaster Risk Management Guidelines. While the guidelines provide a basic
framework for disaster risk management, they do not define the methodologies that
 26

should be utilised to obtain the required data. The guidelines are also designed to
provide disaster consultants with enough flexibility to adapt the study to the
constraints and limitations of specific areas.

The McKinlay study sought to identify the potential natural diaster risks that currently
exist or may develop within the shire and use this information to identify all relevant
stakeholders. Through extensive consultation with these stakeholders and members
of the general community, disaster management and mitigation measures were
outlined and their effectiveness assessed. The final part of the study considered the
potential costs and benefits of these measures to ensure the best outcomes for the
greater community were being achieved.

The Disaster Risk Management process used in the McKinlay Shire contained 4
main stages. The following table describes these stages, outlines the methodologies
used in each stage and shows the link to the elements of the Disaster Risk
Management structure outlined in the Queensland Guidelines (see overleaf).
 27

Figure 5. McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Process

Stage Stage Name Stage Description Methodology Related

Number Queenslan
d Guideline
Element

Stage 1. Identification Involved the Analysis of archival Identify

of Natural identification of the all data and Risks
Hazard Risks. hazard risks within the meteorological
McKinlay Shire Study records.
area. Community
Interviews and
Surveying.

Stage 2. Analysis of Assessed the Analysis of archival Analyse

Disaster Risks vulnerability of records. Risks
to Community community and Community Evaluate
And infrastructure. Interviews and Risks
Infrastructure. Surveying.

Stage 3. Development Development of 5 Natural Hazard Treat Risks

of Risk management strategies Impact Reduction
Management and consultation to workshops
and Mitigation assess community
Strategies. support for strategies
and prioritise actions.

Stage 4. Production of Collation of results and Preparation of report Treat Risks

Final Strategy. preparation of final
strategy for McKinlay
Shire Council.
 28

3.4 Study Methodology

An examination of the McKinlay Shire Diaster Risk Management Process was

achieved through examination of the process methodology, compiled reports,
conducting informal interviews and discussions with Shire members, and work as a
participant observer in the Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops.

The McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study was conducted between
January and August 2001. As the methodology was based on the Queensland
Disaster Risk Management Guidelines, the applicability of this structure was also
assessed during the process.

The consultation methodology adopted for the McKinlay Shire study was performed
during the first 3 stages of the process and utilised surveys and interviews in stages
1 and 2 and workshops during stage 3. An examination of the effectiveness of the
consultation methodology was achieved through the examination of survey material
and interview results as well as participation in the Natural Hazard Impact Reduction
Workshops.

There were 5 Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops conducted for the
McKinlay study. These workshops were held between the 28th of April and the 2nd of
May 2001. An examination of the effectiveness of these workshops was enabled
through participation in the running of the workshops, observation of their operation,
discussions with consultants and participants and examination of the workshop
outcomes.

An analysis of the possibilities to incorporate Disaster Management into Local Shire

Planning was achieved through the examination Queensland’s principle planning
legislation, the Integrated Planning Act, 1997. As a requirement of Act, each Local
Government is preparing a new Planning Scheme. An analysis of the possibilities to
incorporate Disaster Risk Management actions within the land use policies contained
in these schemes was achieved through participation in the preparation of the City of
Thuringowa Planning Scheme, in particular the Natural Hazard City-Wide Code.
 29

4 RESULTS

4.1 Consultation Methodology

Community involvement as stated in the Queensland Disaster Risk Management

Guidelines plays an important part in achieving successful management outcomes.
The benefits of effective community consultation to the risk management process, as
discussed include raising awareness, utilisation of local knowledge, increased
preparedness, greater community support and the development of a sense of public
ownership.

The McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study incorporated a high level of
community involvement activities throughout the process and utilised a range of
consultation methodologies including surveys, interviews, public workshops, council
meetings and informal discussions and dialogue with community members.

4.2 Effectiveness of Consultation Methodology

4.2.1 Surveys and Interviews

Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study
involved the surveying and interviewing of key stakeholders and community
members within the shire including property owners, councillors, rural fire brigade
representatives, police and members of the community who had experienced
disasters first hand. The open-ended surveys addressed the identification of natural
hazard risks as well as questions concerned with community vulnerability to disaster
events. Survey recipients were also asked to comment on their support for possible
management and mitigation actions.

During the consultation period for the first two stages of the McKinlay Study, 31 of
these interviews were conducted with individuals that included a joint interview with
council members. The number of interviews conducted represented 2.7% of the
Shires population. Of the surveys group, approximately 80% were male resulting in
gender bias of 4:1. While such as gender bias may have a bearing on the validity of
scientific results, the intent of the surveys, that is to identify natural hazard risks will
not be determined or affected by gender.
 30

4.2.2 Effectiveness of Surveys and Interviews

The information obtained from the interview and surveying techniques utilised in the
first two stages of the process was compiled and compared with historical data and
meteorological data to determine all natural hazards with a realistic chance of
occurring in the shire. This methodology proved successful and acquired the
necessary information for the first two stages of the McKinlay Study and complete the
Identify and Analyse Risks elements outlined in the Queensland Guidelines.

The survey and interview techniques also allowed a compilation of possible risk
management and mitigation measures that were used to formulate the draft disaster
management strategy. While response rates to the interviews were good, some of
the respondents indicated that they would not take part in the workshop activities as
they had already contributed and could not afford the additional time to commit to
workshop activities.

4.2.3 Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops

Stage 3 of the McKinlay Study incorporated a more participatory approach to

community involvement. Using structured workshops, community members were
asked to indicate support for possible disaster management actions and prioritise
these actions based on the urgency of need to the community. The Natural Hazard
Impact Reduction Workshop material and results are included in Appendix 1 and 2.

There were five community workshops conducted between the 28th of April and the
2nd of May 2001. The workshops were situated in 5 different parts of the shire to
allow greater access for all members of the community. In this respect, workshops
were held in Julia Creek, Kynuna, Nelia, McKinlay and Sedan Dip. The location of
each of the workshops is shown in Figure 3.

The structure of the workshops involved group participation in a number of task

associated with impact reduction and possible disaster management activities. The
group format was used to encourage discussion of the issues and drive consensus
for the issue being debated.
 31

The first section of the workshop required the groups to work through a prepared
form and show the groups support for possible disaster management and mitigation
actions. Once the first task was completed, the groups were encouraged to prioritise
the supported management actions and rank the top ten in terms of their urgency.
The final list and the issues raised were then presented by a chosen group leader
and recorded by the disaster management team and displayed using a data
projection screen to ensure the proper meanings of each speaker were being
recorded.

The second task completed during the workshops was the graphical identification of
potential risks on a topographic map of the shire. This task involved workshop
members identifying flood heights during seasonal and major flood events, fire
ignition points, past sites of wind damage and impassable roads during flood events.
Participants were also encouraged to identify permanent water available for fire
suppression and all weather landing strips for small aircraft.

4.2.4 Effectiveness of Natural Hazard Impact reduction workshops

4.2.4.1 Attendance

The total attendance to the Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops is shown in the
following table.

Figure 6. Workshop Attendance Figures

Workshop Location Participants

1 Julia Creek 6
2 Nelia 5
3 McKinlay 6
4 Kynuna 7
5 Sedan Dip 0

Total Number of Participants 21

 32

The Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops were poorly attended by the
McKinlay community with only 1.84% of the Shires’ population participating. The
reasons for the low attendance can only be speculated but a number of factors can
be identified as contributing to the low level of participation.

4.2.4.2 Advertising

Advertising of the Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops was the designated

responsibility of the McKinlay Shire. Advertising of the workshops was anticipated to
appear in the local newsletter, regional newspaper and broadcast on local radio in
the days leading up to the first workshop. The workshops were also intended to be
advertised through informal communication lines including community notice boards,
the Country Women’s Association and word of mouth.

However, this level of advertising was not achieved and the workshops were not
promoted in any from of the written media and relied heavily on the informal
communication lines to inform people of time, location and reasons for the
workshops. The interview on ABC radio was conducted as scheduled the day
before the first workshop.

The limited advertising would have contributed to a low awareness of the workshops
and resulted in fewer participants. A majority of the community members who did
take part in the workshops indicated that they were made aware of the workshops
through informal communication means.

4.2.4.3 Loss of Ownership of past Workshops

In spite of the clear lack of formal advertising of the workshops, the low level of
community participation may also be attributed to a range of factors. A workshop
participant expressed the view that the low level of attendance may be attributed to a
general sense of a loss of ownership of past workshops and a perceived inability to
affect the outcomes of the management actions being debated.

This problem has been identified in the past and been linked to the perceived gap
between technical experts and the community. Many authors acknowledge the wide
spread use of top-down methodologies within disaster management has contributed
 33

to a loss of ownership of past community involvement activities (Fordham 1999,

Twigg 1999).

This problem is further exacerbated when community members can not see that
there are any benefits that will come out of the process or, that their ideas will ever
be implemented at a ground level. This view was also expressed by a number of
workshop participants and may contributed to the sense of loss of ownership of past
community involvement actions.

4.2.4.4 Individual Resilience

The McKinlay Shire Risk Identification report indicates that residents know the forces
of nature can not be stilled and accept that floods, bushfires, severe windstorms,
heat waves, cold snaps and insect plagues are part of life in North-West Queensland
(Goudie 2001). Most adults within the shire will have first hand experience with
natural hazard events. As a result of this, the community understands that the
prevention of controllable risks, preparation against foreseeable damage, responses
to help ones self and others, along with focused recovery efforts from the impacts of
natural disasters all help to minimise loss and disruption to normal life.

While this high level of awareness sets the McKinlay Shire community in good stead
to contribute to the disaster risk management process it also creates ambivalence to
management efforts and community involvement activities. A number of the
workshop participants expressed the opinion that they had coped with disasters for a
number of generations and had taken sufficient precaution to negate the effects of
hazard impacts without the preparation of a Diaster Risk Management Strategy.
However, post disaster studies conducted by the Centre for Disaster Studies in North
Queensland have all recorded a level of surprise and disbelief on the part of victims
who did not anticipated the severity of the predictable disaster events (King 2000).

4.2.4.5 Workshops Location

Many of the workshop participants indicated that they were thankful of the varied
locations of the workshop throughout the McKinlay Shire. In spite of this, other
participants highlighted the fact that they and some of the people who were not
present were still faced with a great travelling distance (in some cases greater than
100km) to participate in the workshops activities. Participants also indicated that the
 34

nature of the rural industry limited the amount of free time to participate in the
workshop activities. It was also suggested that some members of the community
who were not present but wanted to be involved could not afford the time (travelling
and participation) to participate in the workshops.

4.2.4.6 Duration of Workshops

The formal section of the Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops was scheduled to
take approximately 2 hours. This time was sufficient to achieve the activities and
determine the outcomes of each workshop and maintain focus on the task at hand.
However, some of the best information gathered was obtained during a time of
informal discussion following the workshops. The structure and duration of the
McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Study enabled ample time for informal
discussion which proved to be a valuable tool for gaining extra information, seeking
personal opinions, raising awareness and developing relationships between disaster
consultants and the McKinlay Shire community.

4.2.4.7 Workshop Structure

The structure of the workshops as described earlier in the chapter proved successful
in terms of achieving the desired outcomes. This was facilitated by a clear
demonstration of the tasks by the consultants and a reiteration of instructions as
each group completed the previous activity.

Most of the workshop groups were able grasp the concepts and activities placed
before them and work independently to complete the tasks with ease. The workshop
conducted at McKinlay had the most trouble completing the activities and needed to
be guided through the rating and prioritisation of the possible management activities
by the consultants. While this was a necessary course of action it may have
introduced some bias to the results recorded in the McKinlay workshop.

4.2.4.8 Group Size

As a result of the limited participation in the workshops, the individual groups were
also relatively small. Although most of the workshops ran well and all participants
made a contribution towards the outcomes, some of the workshops were driven by
the more educated and eloquent members of the group. These people were able to
 35

clearly express their views and achieve a heavy influence on the prioritisation of the
management actions. This was particularly noticeable in the Julia Creek workshop
where a property owner played a dominant role in throughout the workshop.

With the exception of the Julia Creek, the male participants generally controlled the
workshop activities. The nature of the workshop activities and the topics being
discussed would not have been greatly affected by male dominance, rather this
observation reflects traditional social constructs that are present in Australian rural
areas.

4.3 Issues for Disaster Managers and Consultants

The McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management process highlighted some issues that
are present within remote shires that will have a bearing on both the consultation
strategies used and the implementation of disaster management actions. These
issues have the potential to greatly affect the success or failure of disaster risk
management activities in remote shires.

4.3.1 Local Government Support

The level of Local Government support for disaster management activities can have
a great impact on the success of community involvement activities and the
implementation of management objectives. A high level of Local Government
support can be beneficial in terms of devoting increased time and resources to the
study, contribute actively to participation efforts and encourage the community to
become involved in the management process.

Conversely, a low level of local government support can lead to the discouragement
of participation in consultation initiatives, limited implementation of strategy outcomes
and recommendations, and the introduction of political biases that place weight on
certain aspects of the study to fulfil political agendas.

4.3.2 Local Government Resources

Creating and implementing a successful Disaster Risk Management strategy can be

an expensive task. In some rural areas, where emergency management resources
are limited, the funding of disaster management projects can become a major
 36

challenge (Friez 2000). Remote shires characterised by a small and sparse

population often struggle in terms of the allocation of resources for funding as a result
of limited staff and a small rate base. As a result of this, remote shires are more
dependent on government funding and project grants and may not be able to
implement the more expensive management outcomes.

4.3.3 Community Loss of Ownership

Public participation has become a common factor within the construction and
implementation of public policy, legislation and environmental management programs
in Australia. This movement was aimed at enabling the community to have an
increased level of participation in the planning process and affect the decisions that
would impact on their lives. However, as a result of expense associated with
increased participation requirements, community involvement efforts are often limited
to top down methodologies where the community is seen as a one-way information
source and not as a partner with a valid contribution to management outcomes. This
approach has been referred to as rubber stamp participation that fulfils legislative
requirements to the minimum degree (McDonald 1999).

As a result of the increased number of community involvement activities, the reliance

on top down methodologies and the failure to adequately involve the community,
there is a sense of loss of ownership of community participation efforts and an
unwillingness to participate in future efforts. This feeling was present within the
McKinlay Shire with a number of workshop participants indicating that they felt a loss
of ownership from previous community involvement programs.

This sense of a loss of ownership may have contributed to the low level of
participation experienced in the Natural Hazard Impact Reductions Workshops. A
workshop participant commented during the Julia Creek Workshop that people may
have been turned off community participation because of the loss of ownership and
the perception that they have been ignored during past workshop and community
involvement strategies.

4.3.4 Local Resilience

Natural hazards are a “way of Life” in many regions of Australia (May et al 1994). To
a large extent, natural disaster events are an ingrained in the psyche of members of
 37

the Australian outback who have developed a high level of individual resilience to the
impacts of disaster. Resilience describes the capacity of systems to maintain their
integrity, relationships and balance between elements in the presence of significant
disturbances (Paton 2000).

Historic outback literature describing the Australian environment is quick to highlight

the presence of disaster events and the local resilience to their presence.

“I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains, of rugged mountain ranges, of

droughts and flooding rains.” - Dorothea McKellar – I Love a Sunburnt Country

There is a noticeably high level of individual resilience in the McKinlay Shire. This is
the result of a variety of factors that have encouraged a culture of individual
resilience and independence in the face of disaster events. Most adults in the shire
have had experience with the range of natural disasters. A common expression used
in various forms by McKinlay residents is that ‘disasters, wether bushfire, floods or
wind are a natural part of life; you deal with it as best you can and get on with it’.

Disaster events within the region are also a common and somewhat predictable
event. Localised flooding occurs almost on a yearly basis with wide spread flooding
recorded on an average of once every four years (Goudie 2001). Bushfires are also
predictable and are most common in the dry months following the wet season. The
frequency of disaster events requires that individuals take the necessary precautions
to reduce the impacts of disasters and the results in effective individual management.

Furthermore, the large distances between homes and emergency services, supplies
and medical facilities encourages individuals to take the necessary steps to reduce
the impact of disaster events in case they can not access community facilities and
infrastructure. As a result of these factors, individual resilience to natural disaster is
very high. People generally take the necessary precautions to ensure their family
and property are protected from disaster events.

While this is clearly a benefit to the awareness and implementation of disaster

management objectives, it may also contribute to a low level of participation in
community involvement as people believe they have taken all appropriate measures
to prepare themselves for disaster events.
 38

4.4 Recommendations for Remote Shire Disaster Risk Management Study

Designs

The McKinlay Shire Study highlighted a number issues that should be addressed to
create a successful community involvement methodology for Disaster Risk
Management in a Remote area. These recommendations are simple but can
dramatically increase the success of community involvement techniques and
enhance the role the community will play in the management of disaster risks.

?? Develop Trust and Dialogue

Dialogue involves conversation debate and the formation of relationships with the
community in a manner that allows participants to express their views and participate
openly in the study. For this to occur, a high level of trust must be developed
between the consultant and the community.

There is some feeling of apprehension toward outsiders in remote areas and a belief
that, in general, consultants generally do not know enough about the region in which
they are working and therefore study outcomes are likely to be inapplicable to the
local situation. This barrier is more likely to be broken down by a consultant or
manager who has spent ample time with the community and developed personal
relationships with its’members.

?? Advertise Effectively

Advertising of the study program, activities and purpose of community involvement

should be conducted using both informal and formal communication lines. Informal
communication lines such as notice boards, community based organisations and
newsletters have the potential to reach a much greater audience than some
traditional advertising mechanisms such as newspaper and radio. The identification
of all communication avenues should be performed earlier in the study to ensure
maximum exposure of community involvement activities. If the advertising of
consultation activities is left to the Local Government, the researcher should ensure
that an adequate level of advertising is being achieved.
 39

?? Spread the Location

The great distances that separate community members in remote shires can result in
high travel and time costs for participants in community involvement activities. To
reduce these costs for community members, and to enhance participation
opportunities, the location of activities should be spread throughout the study area.

The personal interviews and surveys conducted during the first stage of the
consultation methodology within the McKinlay study demonstrated that adopting this
methodology could achieve high response rate and an excellent source of data.
However, personal interviews conducted in the homes of participants are generally a
more time consuming and expensive process.

Another method of reducing travel costs and enhancing participation is to align the
community involvement activity with other events that draw people from the wider
community into the service centres such as local shows, festivals or church.

?? Simplicity Provides the Best Results

Community involvement activities should be simple and succinct in nature.

Participants will provide more honest answers when they have a clear understanding
of the task at hand. Minimising the duration of activities will also result in improved
participation as people can remain focused and not be concerned about the length of
the activities.

?? Clearly Define Role and Outcomes

The purpose of the consultation activity, how it fits within the disaster risk
management process and the extent to which the outcomes of the involvement will
contribute to final management recommendations should all be clearly described to
the participants. This enhances participation effort and reduces confusion relating to
the final results and implementation of the strategy.

?? Embrace Local Knowledge

There is a wealth of local knowledge in remote rural Queensland. Much of the

information required for successful disaster management such as hazard mapping,
 40

and risk identification is not documented but preserved in the mental maps and
minds of community members. Encouraging community members to divulge this
information can very valuable as in many case it has been passed down through
generations and outdates formal records and archived material.

4.5 Chapter Summary

The Queensland Disaster Risk Management Guidelines provide a detailed

framework on which to build an effective Diaster Risk Management study. The
McKinlay process has proved that a study based on the Queensland guidelines can
be easily utilised to identify and analyse disaster risks, provide treatment strategies
and lead to the creation of effective Disaster Risk Management outcomes.

The Queensland guidelines promote and enable the flexibility required to conduct
and create a management strategy that is specific to the constraints, limitations and
opportunities of the study area. The flexibility of the guidelines is clearly outlined
within the description of the basic elements of the Disaster Risk Management
Process. The Guidelines indicate that their purpose is not to be regarded as a
standard, but as a guiding framework that can be used to develop an appropriate
process that is responsive particular circumstances (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).
Throughout the guidelines, this is demonstrated through the use of broad
descriptions of processes and suggestions for management actions rather than
requirements.

As a result of this flexibility, it is left in the hands of the consultant or disaster

managers to develop a study design that is appropriate for the specific study area.
This includes the wider study context and individual elements including the
consultation strategy. The guidelines also indicate that good communication
between consultants, managers, external agencies and the community is a feature of
successful Risk Management activities (Zamecka & Buchanan 2000).

While not prescribing detailed methodologies for community involvement the

guidelines do indicate that the consultant and managers should:

?? identify the aims, objectives and timeframes for community involvement

activities;
?? identify the internal and external participants;
 41

?? determine the most suitable methods of consultation;

?? document the results of consultation activities;
?? include the results in the decision making process; and
?? provide feedback to participants.

These steps provide consultants with the basic framework required to conduct a
successful community involvement strategy without restricting the freedom to
implement appropriate methods that are best suited to the study area.

The structure of McKinlay Shire consultation strategy was aimed at achieving a high
level of community involvement throughout the study. The survey and interviewing
technique utilised during stage 1 and 2 of the process provided excellent results
concerning the identification of disaster risks within the Shire and a made the
preliminary description of management and mitigation activities possible. The
surveys conducting at rural properties in Shire had high travel costs but delivered
quality information and demonstrated to the community the desire of the consultants
to gather input form all sectors of the McKinlay Shire. Actions such as these helped
develop personal relationships between consultants and the community and were
fundamental to the development of trust and dialogue demonstrate during the later
stages of the process.

The Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops were aimed at utilising a more
participative approach to community involvement than the surveys and interviews
conducted during the first 2 stages. The workshops were designed to drive
discussion and robust debate between workshop participants and come to a
consensus concerning the final outcomes of each of the workshop activities. The
design of the activities was successful in that participants became involved in
constructive debates concerning the possible treatment options yet were able to
present a final result with the backing of all participants.

The structure of the workshops also achieved some of the secondary benefits
associated with effective community involvement. These included: increased
awareness of disaster risk and management possibilities, the formation of useful
relationships between disaster managers and community members and the
generation of increased interest in the management of disaster risk within the Shire.
 42

The mapping exercise proved to be a successful activity to physically record the local
knowledge of disaster events in the Shire. While mapping of disaster events, such
as floods and fires, has never been performed for the area, the information is stored
in the mental maps of community members. Workshop participants tended to be
more confident when mapping flood heights rather than other disaster events which
were recorded on the map in a more general fashion.

In spite of these benefits, the workshops were limited in terms of their representation
of the McKinlay Shire community. The low level of participation may be contributed
to variety of factors discussed earlier including ineffective advertising, loss of
ownership, high levels of individual resilience, high travel costs and earlier
participation in surveys and interviews conducted in stages 1 and 2. Some small
alterations to the preparation of the workshop activities may have resulted in an
increased level of participation and a more representative sample. However, the
information provided by the workshop participants, combined with the data gathered
earlier was sufficient to complete the study and compose a Disaster Risk
Management Strategy in accordance with the Queensland Disaster Risk
Management Guidelines.
 43

5 INCORPORATING DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT INTO SHIRE PLANNING

5.1 Land use Planning for Disaster Management

Natural hazards and disaster events are a very much part of the natural workings of
the earth and are not problems in and of themselves (Geis 1996). However, these
hazards do become a problem when they impact on human settlements and provide
a dramatic demonstration of people living in conflict with their environment (Centre
for Excellence for Sustainable Development 2001). The severity of the impacts
associated with natural disasters is greatly affected by the appropriateness of the
built human environment and our settlement patterns (Geis 1996).

Land use planning is increasingly recognised as a tool that can be utilised to

incorporate disaster management into Local Government planning. Land use
planning is concerned with the spatial location, extent and composition of the built
environment. Traditionally, local mitigation and disaster management activities have
taken the form of stronger building codes, stricter code enforcement, new
construction methods and materials, and public education programs. While these
actions are beneficial in terms of disaster response, land use planning has the ability
to reduce community vulnerability and the economic impacts associated with disaster
events through proactive measures (Devlin 1998). Where building codes consider
the built environment as a series of individual structures, land use planning considers
structures within the context of the community and regulates their location, siting and
proposed uses to create a more appropriate and disaster resistant human
environment.

Land use planning and the management of new development show potential for
reducing societal vulnerability to natural hazards and for bringing about more
sustainable communities (Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities 1997). In
spite of the clear benefits that can be obtained through land use planning, Devlin
(1998) indicates that rarely has it been at the forefront of disaster management
efforts.

‘Project Impact’is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiative used

to create disaster resistant communities in the United States. Project Impact
achieves this aim through encouraging and supporting the local communities to
adopt actions that reduce disruption and loss as a result of disasters (FEMA 2000).
 44

Many ‘Project Impact’communities have found success in achieving this aim through
the adoption of disaster management principles within land use planning policies.
Planning in North Dakota, initiated over 20 years ago, has demonstrated that land
use planning for disaster management can achieve economically and socially
measurable success. It is estimated that US $45 million dollars of damages was
prevented during flood events in 2000 as a result of actions by individuals,
businesses and local state and federal partners in a clear demonstration that
mitigation planning can work (Friez 2001).

Similarly, a 1996 FEMA study estimated that Oregon saves about US $10 million a
year in flood losses because of strong land use planning policies. These benefits
were obtained through the implementation of a local land use plan 25 years ago that
included inventories, policies, and ordinances to guide development in hazard areas
thereby reducing the losses from flooding, landslides, earthquakes and wildfire
(Oregon State Wide Planning Effort 1997). In this regard, developments with a high
risk of damage or that could result in the loss of life were not allowed to be located in
known hazard areas without appropriate safe guards.

Land use planning for disasters is based on mapping the extent and impacts of
natural hazards and designing policies accordingly. The use of Geographic
Information Systems to map hazards and community vulnerability is an emerging
field. As a result of this, land use planning for disasters can be extremely data
intensive depending on the range and severity of hazard events affecting the study
area. Disaster studies conducted in remote Shires of North Queensland have found
that the availability of hazard mapping is often limited (Centre for Disaster Studies
2001). Collection and collation of the required data can be an expensive and time-
consuming process.

Queensland’s Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) which commenced on 30 March

1998, is designed to facilitate the coordination and integration of planning at a local,
regional and State level to ensure that balanced ecological, economic and social
outcomes are achieved for future development (Cawood et al 1999). Planning
Schemes that are being prepared in accordance with IPA are enabling Local
Governments to implement disaster management and mitigation recommendations
as well as incorporate them into local strategic planning and development
assessment. The State Governments support for such actions is demonstrated
 45

through the of a possible development of a State Planning Policy to make such

actions a statutory requirement for all Local Governments.

5.2 State Planning Policy on Land Use planning for Natural Disaster Mitigation
and Development Assessment

Disaster Risk Management is currently an initiative promoted by the State

Government and taken on board by some proactive councils. However, the
preparation of a new State Planning Policy on Land Use Planning for Natural
Disaster Mitigation may soon require all Local Governments to undertake some form
of disaster planning.

A State Planning Policy is a statutory planning instrument that is developed under

Queensland’s principle planning legislation, the Integrated Planning Act 1997. A
State Planning Policy addresses matters that must be considered when making
planning decisions at a State and Local Government level. If adopted, the Natural
Hazards State Planning Policy will describe the State’s position on development and
land use planning issues within areas susceptible to hazards including cyclones,
flooding, landslides, bushfires, severe storms and earthquakes. The State Planning
Policy will also play a key role in the creation of new planning schemes in each local
government area in accordance with IPA.

The State Planning Policy may require local governments to perform a variety of
actions to incorporate hazard mitigation and disaster management within all aspects
of Local Government planning. It is anticipated that each local government area will
identify and map hazard prone areas from which appropriate planning measures can
be created.

These planning measures can be incorporated into the IPA planning schemes in a
number of ways including Desired Environmental Outcomes that articulate the
preferred end state desired by the community and the development of specific
planning codes.

Planning schemes may also be required to apply appropriate planning policies,

development standards and performance criteria to identified hazard prone areas.
Some proactive Local Governments have already addressed natural hazards within
 46

their draft IPA planning schemes and successfully incorporated planning area codes
to control development within hazard prone areas.

A further requirement of the State Planning Policy may result in each Local
Government undertaking a Disaster Risk Management Strategy to adequately
identify risk, assess vulnerability and prescribe disaster management and mitigation
measures that may be adopted.

5.3 IPA Planning Schemes

As a requirement of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 each local government must
prepare a new planning scheme in accordance with the new legislative guidelines.
All Local Government planning schemes are to be completed by 2003.

Schedule 1 section 4.(1) of the Act identifies the core matters for the preparation of a
planning scheme. The core matters include, land use and development,
infrastructure and valuable features. While disaster management or natural hazards
management is not specifically addressed within the core matters it is not discounted
either. The definition of land use and development contains reference to
development constraints (including, but not limited to, population and demographic
impacts). Natural hazards and disaster risk can be included within this definition of
land use and development and can therefore be legally incorporated within IPA
planning schemes.

IPA planning schemes present an excellent opportunity for local governments to

assess vulnerability to natural disasters and develop planning measures to ensure
that new development does not lead to and increase in community vulnerability. The
preparation of draft planning schemes in certain local government areas has
demonstrated the ability of local governments to effectively incorporate disaster
management within IPA planning schemes.

?? Desired Environmental Outcomes

Disaster management can be addressed in IPA planning schemes through a variety

of planning mechanisms. The Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) are a key
element of all planning schemes (s 2.1.3.(1) IPA 1997). The DEOS articulate the
 47

desire future or end state for the Local Government area and create the strategic
direction or goals for the area.

Community vulnerability and safety can be incorporated within planning schemes as

a DEO. The City of Thuringowa Draft Planning Scheme DEOs contain reference to
the provision of a safe pattern of development that minimises the potential risk to
people and property from: storm surge, flooding, steep and unstable land, bushfire,
acid sulphate soils, contaminated land, salinity, land degradation, and technological
hazards. The DEOs form the base on which the rest of the planning scheme sits and
requires Council to assess how each development will contribute to the achievement
of these preferred outcomes.

?? Natural Hazard Codes

The most effective way that natural hazards management can be incorporated into
IPA planning schemes is through the creation of specific planning requirements that
deal with natural hazards and community’vulnerability. The City of Thuringowa has
prepared a Natural Hazards Code as part of its IPA planning scheme.

The Code utilised a variety of sources of information to construct a comprehensive

hazard map that clearly defines all hazard prone areas within the local government
areas. Any development occurring within these zones is then subject to more
rigorous planning requirements to ensure that the development does not contribute to
an increase in community and personal vulnerability. An example of this is the
flooding section of the natural hazards code which is aimed at ensuring a level of
flood immunity such that habitable areas are not inundated by a 50 year ARI flood
event. The code also seeks to ensure that any development will not contribute to the
worsening of flood conditions on site or elsewhere within the catchment.

5.4 Chapter Summary

The preparation of State Planning Policy may soon require all Local Government
Areas to incorporate disaster management in local land use planning. To achieve
effective land use planning outcomes, natural hazard policies must be based on
accurate data that defines the spatial extent and distribution of hazards. This data
may include topographic information such as land elevations and geomorphology,
flood heights and water flow directions, bush fire paths, acid sulphate soils, degraded
 48

land and storm surge heights. Mapping this data allows planners to consider impacts
of hazards on strategic planning outcomes and site development more appropriately.
Obtaining this information is likely to be expensive and may not be possible in some
of the remote and rural shires.

While land use planning for disaster management provides some clear benefits to
reducing community vulnerability it is often implemented using top down
methodologies and does not achieve the secondary benefits associated with a more
participative approach such as the formulation of a Disaster Risk Management
Strategy. Land use planning should therefore be regarded as a tool that can be
utilised to effectively implement some of the outcome of the broader Disaster Risk
Management Process.
 49

6 DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND REMOTE SHIRE PLANNING

Adopting a participative approach towards community involvement strategies in

Disaster Risk Management has received much support in the literature. A
participative approach enables researchers to gather the required information for the
study as well as achieving a number of secondary benefits. These benefits can
include increased awareness of disaster risks, greater understanding of management
and mitigation options, the development of useful relationships between community
members and disaster managers, a feeling of ownership of the study results, and
greater long-term support for management outcomes.

An analysis of the effectiveness of the Community Involvement strategy adopted for

the McKinlay Shire, Disaster Risk Management Strategy highlighted some issues
that can have a great bearing on the success or failure of disaster management
activities in a remote shire. These issues included a strong feeling of individual
resilience, a sense of loss of ownership of past consultation activities, Local
Government support and high travel costs to participate in consultation activities.
Although these issues can be a stumbling block for disaster risk management
activities in remote shires, they can be managed through simple alterations to study
methodologies and effective implementation measures. The Queensland Disaster
Risk Management Guidelines have acknowledged the need for flexibility in study
designs and placed the onus on disaster managers and consultants to design an
appropriate study based on the framework provided.

While the preparation of a disaster mitigation strategy is a ‘bottom up’process that

gives ownership to the community and increases levels of awareness, land use
planning provides a top down reinforcement of the need for mitigation while collating
and mapping hazard zone information. Land use planning has emerged as an option
that can be used to implement disaster risk management and mitigation actions
through the appropriate siting, and application of building standards to new
development. To achieve effective land use planning for disaster events, planning
policies must be based on reliable hazard mapping. The availability and accessibility
of this information may hinder the development of land use planning policies in
remote Shires. Many Shire’s do not have the resources to conduct the required
scientific studies to formally collect this data. However, as demonstrated by the
mapping exercise conducted during the workshops for the McKinlay Shire Disaster
 50

Risk Management Strategy, this information does exist in the mental maps of
community members.

While land use planning has proved to be successful in terms of reducing community
vulnerability and the economic impacts of natural disasters, the top down nature of
policies may not gain the secondary benefits that can be obtained through a more
participative Disaster Risk Management Strategy. Land use planning should
therefore be regarded as a useful tool to supplement Disaster Risk Management
outcomes.

Conducting a Disaster Risk Management Strategy that utilises a participative

community involvement methodology can maximise the benefits obtained from the
process. Land use planning tools such as planning codes prepared within IPA
planning schemes can then be used to implement appropriate planning measures for
disaster management within the Local Government statutory planning environment.
 51

7 REFERENCES

Anon. (1994). World Conference Adopts Yokohama Strategy for Natural Disasters.
UN Chronicle. September 1994 31:3:70

Anon. (1997). Building a Culture of Prevention: The International Decade for Natural
Disaster Reduction 1990-2000. UNESCO Courier. Oct: 34.

Arnstein, SR. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planning

Journal. July: 216-225.

Beck, LR. (1994). Beware and Prepare for Future Disasters. Best’s Review –
property Casualty Insurance Edition. August 1994 95:4:74

Boughton, G. (1998). The Community: central to Emergency Risk Management.

Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Winter 1998.

Buckle, P. (1996). Community Based Strategies for Mitigating the Effects of

Disasters. Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction. Queensland, Australia.

Buckle, P. (2000). New Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience.

Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Winter 2000.

Buckland, J. Rahman, M. (1999). Community-based Disaster Management During

the 1997 Red River Flood in Canada. Disasters. 23:2:174-191

Burby R. et al. (1999). Unleashing the Power of planning to Create Disaster-

Resistant Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association. Summer
1999 65:3:247

Butler, C. Rissel, C. Khavarpour, F. (1999). The Context for Community Participation

in Health Action in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues. August 34:3:253

Cawood, M. Jones, R. Durham, K. (1999). The Application of Risk Management

principles to Municipal Emergency Management Practice. Department of Emergency
Services, Queensland.
 52

Centre for Disaster Studies. (2001). Cyclone and Natural hazard Vulnerability in
Remote and Indigenous Communities of North Queensland. James Cook University,
Townsville.

Centre for Excellence for Sustainable Development (2001). Sustainability and

Disaster Response. Project for the US Department of Energy, United States.

Department of Primary Industries. (2001). Rural Lifestyles Queensland – Julia Creek.

www.dpi.qld.gov.au

Devlin, PA. (2000). Avoiding Natural Disasters. Institute for Business and Home
Safety. www.ibhs.org

Dover, S. (1998). Community Involvement in Environmental Management: Thoughts

for Emergency Management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Winter
1998.

Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). (2000). Project Impact:

Building Disaster Resistant Communities. www.fema.gov/impact

Ferrier, N. (1999). Demographics and Emergency Management: Knowing Your

Stakeholders. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Summer 1999-2000.

Fordham, M. (1999). Participatory planning for Flood Mitigation: Models and

Approaches. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Summer 1998-1999.

Friez, DC. (2001). Finding Measurable Success in Mitigation. North Dakota Division
of Emergency Management, USA.

Geis, DE. (1996). Creating Sustainable and Disaster Resistant Communities. The
Aspen Global Change Institute. Aspen, Colorado.

Goudie, D. (2001). McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Report 1: Risk

Identification.

Goudie, D. (2001). McKinlay Shire Disaster Risk Management Report 2: Risk

Evaluation and Draft Responses.
 53

Goodyear, EJ. (2000). Disaster Mitigation: Challenges to Raise the Capacity of At-
Risk Populations in Coping With Natural, Social and Economic Disasters. Australian
Journal of Emergency Management. Spring 2000.

Hodges, A. (1996). Changes in Australian Disaster Management and IDNDR: The

Australian Approach. Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction. Queensland,
Australia.

King, D. (1999). You’re on Your Own: Community Vulnerability and the need for
Awareness and Education for Predictable Natural Disasters. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management. 8:4:223-228.

Lichterman, JD. (2000). A”Community as Resource”Strategy for Disaster Response.

Public Health Reports. March – June 2000.

Environment Australia (2001). Local Agenda 21Action Plans - Sustaining

Communities. www.ea.gov.au

May, P. Rynn, J. Hatchard, T. (1994) Recent Natural Disasters in Australia 1993-94.

International Centre for Disaster Mitigation Engineering Newsletter. October -
December 3:3.

Mitchell, B (1998). Integrating Emergency Services – How WA is merging fire and

emergency services. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Autumn 98-99.

Pagram, R. (1998). Shifts in Emergency Management Service Provision: A Case for

New Innovative Leadership. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Autumn
1998-1999.

Parkes, T. (2000). Good Practice in Emergency Management. Australian Journal of

Emergency Management. Autumn 2000.

Paton, D. (2001). Responding to hazard Effects: Promoting Resilience and

Adjustment Adoption. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Autumn 2001.
 54

Queensland Department of Emergency Services Fact Sheet (2001). State Planning

Policy on Land Use Planning.

Rouhban, B. (1997). Safety First! (Need for a ‘Culture of Prevention’in Response to

Increasingly Destructive Natural Disasters) UNESCO Courier. Oct: 6-8.

Salter, J. (1996). Risk Management in a Disaster Management Context. Conference

on Natural Disaster Reduction. Queensland, Australia.

Scanlon, J. (1996). Could the System be Upside Down? Some Questions About the
Current Approach to Emergency Planning. Conference on Natural Disaster
Reduction. Queensland, Australia.

Shoaf K.I. Rottman S.J. (2000). Public Health Impact of Disasters. Australian Journal
of Emergency Management. Spring 2000.

Skertchly, A. Skertchly, K. (2000). Human Aspects of the Katherine-Daly Flood

Disaster. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Autumn 2000.

Soste, L. Glass, J. (1996). Facilitating and Appropriate Response to Flood Warnings:

A Community Based Flood Awareness Program. Conference on Natural Disaster
Reduction. Queensland, Australia.

State Counter Disaster Organisation. (2001). Disaster Planning for Local

Governments. Brisbane, Australia.

Queensland Department of Emergency Services. (2001). State Planning Policy on

Land Use Planning for Natural Disaster Mitigation and Development Assessment –
Discussion Paper. Queensland, Australia.

Twigg, J. (1999). The Age of Accountability?: Future community Involvement in

Disaster Reduction. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Summer 1999-
2000.
 55

Young, E. (1998). Dealing with Hazards and Disasters: Risk Perception and
Community Participation in Management. Australian Journal of Emergency
Management. Winter 1998.

Zamecka, A. Buchanan, G. (2000). Disaster Risk Management. Queensland

Department of Emergency Services. Queensland, Australia.

Zamecka, A. Buchanan, G. (2000) Disaster Risk Management - A How to Manual for

Local Governments. Queensland Department of Emergency Services. Queensland,
Australia.

Legislation

Integrated Planning Act, 1997 (Queensland)

State Counter Disaster Organisation Act, 1975 (Queensland)

Internet Resources

Emergency Management Australia

www.ema.goc.au

Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Queensland)

www.ipa.Queensland.gov.au

Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder

www.colorado.edu/hazards

State Counter Disaster Organisation (Queensland)

www.disaster.Queensland.gov.au

Project Impact
www.fema.gov/impact

Federal Emergency Management Agency

www.fema.gov
56
 57

8 APPENDICIES

Appendix 1 McKinlay Shire Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops Material

Appendix 2 McKinlay Shire Natural Hazard Impact Reduction Workshops Results