The document outlines the development of a spatial decision support system (SDSS) aimed at understanding and mitigating long-term disaster risks in Australia, with a focus on integrating participatory processes and multi-hazard approaches. Funded by the Australian Bushfire and Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre, the project involves collaboration between institutions in Australia and the Netherlands to create a framework that can evaluate various hazard scenarios and inform decision-making. Key features of the SDSS include a robust evaluation process, spatially explicit modeling, and the ability to facilitate social learning among stakeholders.

1. P.O. Box 463
6200 AL
Maastricht
hvdelden@riks.nl
Hedwig van
Delden
RIKS 1
A Spatial Decision Support System
(SDSS) for Understanding and
Reducing Long-Term Disaster Risk
Hedwig van Delden1,2
, Graeme A. Riddell1,2
, Roel Vanhout1
, Holger R.
Maier2
, Aaron C. Zecchin2
, Jeffrey P. Newman2
, James Daniell3
and
Graeme C. Dandy2
1
Research Institute for Knowledge Systems, Maastricht, the
Netherlands
2
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of
Adelaide, Australia
3
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

2. Agenda
 Context
 A framework for natural hazard mitigation
planning
 Design and development of a decision support
system (DSS) for natural hazard mitigation
 Use of the DSS in a participatory process
 Conclusions
RIKS 2

3. Impacts of natural disasters Australia

4. “Population trends, urbanisation and
residential shifts to high risk areas will
intersect with climate change to increase
Australia’s exposure to natural hazards as
a whole”
National Climate Resilience &
Adaptation Strategy, Dept. Environment,
December 2015
Natural disasters are expensive

5. Context and issues
 Australian Productivity Commission argues stronger
focus on mitigation compared to response and
recovery
 Large uncertainty, high complexity
 Currently little focus on:
 multi-hazard approaches
 exploring long-term hazard, vulnerability and exposure
 combining participatory and modelling approaches
 understanding trade-offs regarding risk reduction
portfolios
 Differences between hazard models in different fields
RIKS 5

6. Our project
 Funded by the Australian Bushfire and Natural Hazard
Cooperative Research Centre, 2014-2017
 Aim: development of a framework for natural hazard
mitigation decision support systems
 Greater Adelaide
 Greater Melbourne
 Tasmania
 Collaboration of the University of Adelaide, Australia
and RIKS, the Netherlands
RIKS 6

7. A framework for
development and use of
natural hazard mitigation DSS

8. Developmen
t Process
Use
Process
Development and use process

9. Characteristics of the development
and use process
 Closely linked, but separate processes
 DSS development - generic
 Use in practice – case specific
 Feedback mechanisms
 Developed prototypes are applied in the use
process
 System evaluation and case specific requirements
feed into development process
 In early stages of the process emphasis lies
on development, in later stages on use
RIKS 9

10. Development and use process

11. Development process
Van Delden, H., Seppelt, R., White, R. and Jakeman, A.J., 2011. A methodology for the design and
development of integrated models for policy support. Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 266-279

13. Characteristics of the generic DSS
 Multi-hazard approach
 Mitigation planning & long-term integrated
spatial planning
 Consideration of a large number of options
under various scenarios
 Robust and transparent evaluation process
 Spatially explicit and dynamic integrated
modelling approach with feedback processes
where relevant
RIKS 13

14. Applying the risk triangle concept
RIKS 14
EXPOSURE
RISK
HAZARDVULNERABILITY
People
Land use Building stock
Building stock
Social vulnerability
Social capital
Building vulnerability
Economy
Bushfire
Riverine flood
Earthquake
Coastal inundation

15. Modeller interface of the DSS

16. Policy interface for mitigation options:
-Land use planning
-Land management
-Building codes
-Construction of infrastructure
-Education and awareness
Land Use

17. Modeller interface Earthquake

18. Modeller interface Earthquake

19. Modeller interface Earthquake
Damageindex
PGA (m2/s) 2.5

20. Modeller interface Earthquake
Damageindex
Damage
index
PGA (m2/s)
2.5

21. Modeller interface Earthquake

22. Modeller interface Earthquake
Earthquake average annual loss

23. Expected average
annual loss from
earthquakes
2013-2050

24. Use process

25. Use Process
• Produce alternate, plausible futures for socio-economic
developments
• Systemic understanding of why things happen and how they
can be changed
• Explore strategic uncertainties in development and how this
influences region’s risk profile and resilience
• Included into decision making & investment frameworks
• Can consider robust or adaptive programs

26. Use process
 Combination of participation and modelling
 Interviews, questionnaires and workshops
 Scenarios
 Qualitative narratives
 Quantitative analysis
 Spatially-explicit and dynamic integrated
assessment modelling (DSS)
 Discussion on mitigation portfolios
RIKS 26

27. Scenarios for Greater Adelaide
S. 1
S. 4
S. 5
S. 2
S. 3
Low High
Future challenges for mitigation
Futurechallengesforresilience
LowHigh
l Farmer
Ignorance of the
Lambs
Appetite for
Change
Internet of Riskilicon Hills Cynical Farmer
Ignorance of the
Lambs
Appetite for
Change
Internet of Risk
Cynical Farmer
Ignorance of the
Lambs
Appetite for
Change
Internet of Risk
Silicon Hills Cynical Farmer
Ignorance of the
Lambs
Appetite for
Change
Internet of
Silicon Hills Cynical Farmer
Ignoran
La
Cynical Villagers

28. Linking narratives and modelling

29. RIKS 29

30. Residential land use changes 2013-
2050
Internet of Risk - High challengesSilicon Hills - Low challenges
Urban Rural Urban Rural

31. Silicon Hills: Low
Challenges
Internet of Risk: High
Challenges
Coastal inundation risk

32. Silicon Hills: Low
Challenges
Internet of Risk: High
Challenges
Coastal inundation risk
Until present:
•Development and use framework
•DSS prototype and Adelaide application
•Qualitative and quantitative scenarios
Adelaide
Next steps:
•Mitigation portfolio Adelaide
•Improvement of tool and process
•DSS application Melbourne and Tasmania
•Scenario development and decision support

33. Benefits of integrating the
development and use process
 Social learning occurs through:
 Involvement of user in model development
 Involvement of developer in use
 Working together towards a common goal
 Looks towards integration of system within
organisations
 Builds strategic capacity by exploring future
risk profiles
But, time and hence resource consuming
RIKS 33

34. THANK YOU !
Questions?
Hedwig van Delden
hvdelden@riks.nl
RIKS 34

35. Silicon Hills (Low
Challenges)

36. Cynical Villagers (High Challenges
Mitigation)

37. gnorance of the Lambs: High Challenges
Resilience

38. Dynamic Wildfire Risk Modelling
Bushfire Risk

39. Risk reduction

40. Land use planning and suppression
Suppression

41. Planned Burns

42. Modeller interface Earthquake

43. Modeller interface Earthquake

44. Modeller interface Earthquake

45. Modeller interface Earthquake
Damageindex
PGA (m2/s) 2.5

46. Modeller interface Earthquake
Damageindex
Damage
index
PGA (m2/s)
2.5

47. Modeller interface Earthquake

48. Modeller interface Earthquake
Earthquake average annual
loss

49. Expected average
annual loss from
earthquakes
2013-2050