:11
looking at a case study of earthquake in New Zealand to a
00:14
case study of a flood in Queensland, Australia.
00:17
Queensland floods in outline.
00:19
At the same time that Canterbury, New Zealand, was
00:21
dealing with the earthquakes, both the recovery from the
00:25
September 2010 and February 2011, Queensland was dealing
00:30
with a disaster of its own, during which
00:34
70 towns were flooded.
00:36
38 people died.
00:39
Over 200,000 people were affected.
00:42
Most of them were forced out of their homes
00:43
at least for a time.
00:46
The initial direct impact of the costs of that disaster
00:49
were over 2 billion Australian dollars.
00:52
The indirect cost to the Australian economy, though,
00:54
were $30 billion dollars.
00:56
How did the plans that were in place in Queensland prior to
01:00
the floods experience in 2010, '11 deal with the hazard?
01:05
It was found that the plans were overly response-focused,
01:09
that old civil defense approach, that mitigation,
01:13
what to do about those risks, wasn't understood or delivered
01:17
effectively.
01:19
The town planning in most cases in Queensland didn't
01:23
adequately take into account flood risk and reducing that
01:26
risk over time, that more public engagement in relation
01:31
to flood risk was necessary to get the community more aware
01:35
and involved in owning the risk and dealing with it.
01:39
There was a need to encourage more insurance, in the
01:43
Queensland context, for flood.
01:47
And there was certainly a need for better information and
01:49
knowledge, and depicted in maps about where the flood
01:52
risks were for the communities of Queensland.
01:56
The reviews that were carried out subsequent to the floods
01:59
found that there was a need for more emphasis on
02:02
hazard-specific risk reduction.
02:04
And not just for flood--
02:05
it identified a gap in planning in Queensland that
02:09
the was too much of a response focus in relation to virtually
02:12
all hazards, that was a need for community engagement in
02:15
all aspects of emergency management, and understanding
02:18
the risk, working to reduce it, and accept risk reduction
02:21
measures to be ready for the sorts of events that
02:25
Queensland would face respond effectively as communities,
02:29
supported by organisations, and how to then recover from
02:32
them effectively.
02:35
There needed to be enhanced community-level response
02:37
capability.
02:39
It's no use just relying on the emergency services to meet
02:42
your needs, because they are at least as effective as the
02:44
community in most emergencies.
02:47
There needs to be more effective response
02:49
coordination in Queensland.
02:51
The lead prior to the floods was generally in the hands of
02:55
local government that then was saying to be necessary to move
02:59
that to a single agency with responsible for coordination
03:02
of responses to all emergencies.
03:04
In Queensland's case, that was going to be the police.
03:07
From one community in particular, Lockyer Valley,
03:10
some particular issues were identified to address some of
03:15
those recommendations of the wider scale reviews.
03:20
State emergency service teams were going to be enhanced
03:22
within the district.
03:24
Public education about the risks and about being ready
03:27
and responding effectively, as well as risk reduction, was
03:30
going to be emphasised, that plans would be publicly
03:34
accessible not sitting on a shelf gathering dust, that
03:40
response logistics to be of the move resources into
03:43
communities that were affected and assist in moving
03:45
communities out of them in a timely manner would get more
03:49
emphasis in future, that the town plan for the Lockyer
03:52
Valley area would take into account flood-risk management
03:57
and to ensure that development in future would, wherever
04:00
possible, avoid or reduce the risk of flooding.
04:04
Insurance will be promoted.
04:06
Enabling communities to avoid the risk would mean that many
04:08
of them would be able to access insurance in future,
04:13
enabling the insurance companies to make informed
04:15
decisions, and that flood risk maps would be provided to the
04:18
communities and the organisations involved more
04:20
effectively than they had been previously.
04:23
So we've looked at a couple of case studies of emergency
04:26
response in particular and how planning informed those
04:30
responses, how effectively those responses were able to
04:34
be delivered, and some lessons learned from them.
04:37
In the next topic, we're going to look at risk analysis, the
04:40
basis for all of emergency management.
04:43
Before we move off response though, there's an opportunity
04:47
for you to go to the discussion forum.
04:49
I want you to go there and think about a hazard that your
04:53
community or your organisation faces, a severe risk that you
04:56
face, and how you would envisage a response to it
05:01
would be delivered.
05:03
And then, for the discussion, what are some of the issues
05:07
that would come out of that response?
05:09
[MUSIC PLAYING]
:11
looking at a case study of earthquake in New Zealand to a
00:14
case study of a flood in Queensland, Australia.
00:17
Queensland floods in outline.
00:19
At the same time that Canterbury, New Zealand, was
00:21
dealing with the earthquakes, both the recovery from the
00:25
September 2010 and February 2011, Queensland was dealing
00:30
with a disaster of its own, during which
00:34
70 towns were flooded.
00:36
38 people died.
00:39
Over 200,000 people were affected.
00:42
Most of them were forced out of their homes
00:43
at least for a time.
00:46
The initial direct impact of the costs of that disaster
00:49
were over 2 billion Australian dollars.
00:52
The indirect cost to the Australian economy, though,
00:54
were $30 billion dollars.
00:56
How did the plans that were in place in Queensland prior to
01:00
the floods experience in 2010, '11 deal with the hazard?
01:05
It was found that the plans were overly response-focused,
01:09
that old civil defense approach, that mitigation,
01:13
what to do about those risks, wasn't understood or delivered
01:17
effectively.
01:19
The town planning in most cases in Queensland didn't
01:23
adequately take into account flood risk and reducing that
01:26
risk over time, that more public engagement in relation
01:31
to flood risk was necessary to get the community more aware
01:35
and involved in owning the risk and dealing with it.
01:39
There was a need to encourage more insurance, in the
01:43
Queensland context, for flood.
01:47
And there was certainly a need for better information and
01:49
knowledge, and depicted in maps about where the flood
01:52
risks were for the communities of Queensland.
01:56
The reviews that were carried out subsequent to the floods
01:59
found that there was a need for more emphasis on
02:02
hazard-specific risk reduction.
02:04
And not just for flood--
02:05
it identified a gap in planning in Queensland that
02:09
the was too much of a response focus in relation to virtually
02:12
all hazards, that was a need for community engagement in
02:15
all aspects of emergency management, and understanding
02:18
the risk, working to reduce it, and accept risk reduction
02:21
measures to be ready for the sorts of events that
02:25
Queensland would face respond effectively as communities,
02:29
supported by organisations, and how to then recover from
02:32
them effectively.
02:35
There needed to be enhanced community-level response
02:37
capability.
02:39
It's no use just relying on the emergency services to meet
02:42
your needs, because they are at least as effective as the
02:44
community in most emergencies.
02:47
There needs to be more effective response
02:49
coordination in Queensland.
02:51
The lead prior to the floods was generally in the hands of
02:55
local government that then was saying to be necessary to move
02:59
that to a single agency with responsible for coordination
03:02
of responses to all emergencies.
03:04
In Queensland's case, that was going to be the police.
03:07
From one community in particular, Lockyer Valley,
03:10
some particular issues were identified to address some of
03:15
those recommendations of the wider scale reviews.
03:20
State emergency service teams were going to be enhanced
03:22
within the district.
03:24
Public education about the risks and about being ready
03:27
and responding effectively, as well as risk reduction, was
03:30
going to be emphasised, that plans would be publicly
03:34
accessible not sitting on a shelf gathering dust, that
03:40
response logistics to be of the move resources into
03:43
communities that were affected and assist in moving
03:45
communities out of them in a timely manner would get more
03:49
emphasis in future, that the town plan for the Lockyer
03:52
Valley area would take into account flood-risk management
03:57
and to ensure that development in future would, wherever
04:00
possible, avoid or reduce the risk of flooding.
04:04
Insurance will be promoted.
04:06
Enabling communities to avoid the risk would mean that many
04:08
of them would be able to access insurance in future,
04:13
enabling the insurance companies to make informed
04:15
decisions, and that flood risk maps would be provided to the
04:18
communities and the organisations involved more
04:20
effectively than they had been previously.
04:23
So we've looked at a couple of case studies of emergency
04:26
response in particular and how planning informed those
04:30
responses, how effectively those responses were able to
04:34
be delivered, and some lessons learned from them.
04:37
In the next topic, we're going to look at risk analysis, the
04:40
basis for all of emergency management.
04:43
Before we move off response though, there's an opportunity
04:47
for you to go to the discussion forum.
04:49
I want you to go there and think about a hazard that your
04:53
community or your organisation faces, a severe risk that you
04:56
face, and how you would envisage a response to it
05:01
would be delivered.
05:03
And then, for the discussion, what are some of the issues
05:07
that would come out of that response?
05:09
[MUSIC PLAYING]
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
![](//thimg.ilovetranslation.com/pic/loading_3.gif?v=b9814dd30c1d7c59_8619)