Developing a model and tool to measure community disaster...

Report prepared by the Torrens Resilience Institute.

AuthorsProfessor Arbon P. PhD. FACN

Dr. Gebbie K. DrPH. FAAN

Dr. Cusack L. PhD. MACN

Dr. Perera S. MD.

Verdonk S. BEcon.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Commonwealth Government National Emergency Management Program. National Emergency Management Project: NP 1112-0015

Developing a model and tool to measure community disaster resilience

Final Report October 2012

TRI_Report_Toolkit_print.indd 1 14/12/2012 12:04:07 PM

2 Model and Tool for Community Disaster Resilience

Project TeamChief Project Officers

Professor Paul Arbon PhD. FACN

Dr Kristine Gebbie DrPH. FAAN

Dr Lynette Cusack PhD. MACN

Dr Sugi Perera MD.

Research Officer

Ms Sarah Verdonk BEcon.

Disclaimer:

This material was produced with funding provided by the Attorney-General’s Department through the National Emergency Management Program. The Torrens Resilience Institute, Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in this document or any material related to this document for any purpose. The document is provided ‘as is’ without warranty of any kind to the extent permitted by law. The Torrens Resilience Institute, Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Government hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall the Torrens Resilience Institute, Attorney-General’s Department or the Australian Government be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from the loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of information available in this document. The document or material related to this document could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.

Acknowledgements

Special thank you to the local councils and communities who were so generous with their time to trial and advise on the Community Disaster Resilience Scorecard.

• Bunbury, Western Australia

• Emerald, Queensland

• Katherine, Northern Territory

• Marion, South Australia

• Murray Bridge, South Australia

• Whittlesea, Victoria

• Woodside, South Australia

Thank you to the members of the Project Advisory and Project Working Groups.


Model and Tool for Community Disaster Resilience 3

PART A

Executive Summary .................................................................................. 5

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ...................................................................................... 6

1.2 Project Aims and Scope ........................................................... 6

1.3 Terms and Definitions ............................................................... 7

1.4 Project Advisory and Working Groups ............................ 7

SECTION TWO: EVALUATION METHOD

2.1 Stage 1 Literature Review ....................................................... 10

2.2 Stage 2 Development of a Definition of Community Disaster Resilience ....................................................................... 10

2.3 Stage 3 Develop a Model and Tool to Measure Community Disaster Resilience. ........................................ 11

2.4 Stage 4 Testing the Model and Tool ................................. 12

2.5 Stage 5 Evaluation ....................................................................... 12

SECTION THREE: OUTCOMES FROM TRIAL TEST SITES

3.1 Evaluation Findings ..................................................................... 13

3.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 16

CONTENTSSECTION FOUR: PROJECT KEY DELIVERABLES

4.1 Literature Review .......................................................................... 17

4.2 Definition of Community Disaster Resilience ............. 17

4.3 Model: The Four Domains of Community Disaster Resilience .......................................................................................... 18

4.4 Final Tool ............................................................................................ 18

Appendix 1.

Acronyms ......................................................................................................... 19

Appendix 2.

Literature Review ........................................................................................ 20

PART B

Community Disaster Resilience Toolkit



Aim and scope

This project supports the vision of the 2009 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Disaster Resilience Statement and the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience by developing a tool to measure community resilience to all hazards. This will enable local policy makers to establish priorities, allocate funds and develop emergency and disaster management programs more effectively. The use of the measurement tool and balanced Scorecard will help identify the degree to which communities are able to build their resilience because they:

(1) foresee and/or acknowledge threats and risks;

(2) work with the emergency services and other agencies;

(3) have a sense-of-community and social capital; and

(4) take collective responsibility to reduce the socio-economic impact of disruptive events, emergencies and disasters.

PART A: Executive SummaryContext of tool development

This project was undertaken in several stages by the Torrens Resilience Institute (TRI), working with a Project Advisory Group and a Project Working Group. A careful review of existing community resilience models led to the development of a definition and model of community disaster resilience, and a Scorecard to measure community disaster resilience with a set of guidelines. A review of the literature informed the achievement of these key deliverables. The definition, model and Scorecard were reviewed and refined with the help of two communities before a final version was trialled in four communities across Australia (Northern Territory, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia).

The feedback from these communities was then used to finalise the development of the definition, model, Scorecard and guidelines for use by communities interested in measuring their resilience to disasters from all hazards.

Key Deliverables

This project has delivered on:

• Literature review

• Definition of community disaster resilience

• Model of community disaster resilience

• Community Disaster Resilience Scorecard Toolkit



1.2 Project Aim and Scope

This project supports the vision of the 2009 COAG National Disaster Resilience Statement and the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (February 2011) by clarifying the definition of community disaster resilience and developing a tool for communities to measure their disaster resilience to all hazards. The community using this tool will be better able to build resilience because it:

(1) foresees and/or acknowledges threats and risks;

(2) works with the emergency services and other agencies;

(3) has a sense of community and social capital; and

(4) takes collective responsibility to reduce the socio-economic impact of disruptive events, emergencies and disasters.

1.1 Background

This is the final report on developing a model and tool to measure community disaster resilience funded by Commonwealth Government National Emergency Management Program (2011/2012).

On 7 December 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to adopt a whole-of-nation resilience based approach to disaster management which recognises that a national, coordinated and cooperative effort is required to enhance Australia’s capacity to withstand and recover from emergencies and disasters.

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (February 2011) sets out how the nation should aim to achieve the COAG vision. It emphasises that disaster resilience is not solely the domain of emergency services; rather it involves society as a whole.

The project was implemented by the Torrens Resilience Institute. The Institute comprises the University of Adelaide, Cranfield University, Flinders University and the University of South Australia. The Institute aims to be a national and international centre of excellence through the development of advanced thinking in the concept of resilience.

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION



1.3 Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this project:

a. The term community refers to a geopolitical community such as a town, district or local government area.

b. A disruptive event is an unwanted situation, which has the potential to become an emergency or even a disaster.

c. An emergency is an event, actual or imminent, which endangers or threatens to endanger life, property or the environment, and which requires a significant and coordinated response.

d. A disaster is a condition or situation of significant destruction, disruption and/or distress to a community.

e. A community is resilient when members of the population are connected to one another and work together, so that they are able to function and sustain critical systems, even under stress; adapt to changes in the physical, social or economic environment; be self-reliant if external resources are limited or cut off; and learn from experience to improve itself over time. Community resilience is more than the resilience of individuals, families or specific organisations, though all of those are key components of community resilience.

A summary of the key acronyms used in this report is provided in Appendix 1.

1.4 Project Advisory and Working GroupsAdvisory Group

The Advisory group was a national group with a broad perspective drawn from national, and state government level and consisted of:-

• Mr Beattie C., Chief Officer – State Emergency Services (South Australia).

• Ms Burgess ML., Project Officer – Community Engagement Sub-Committee National Emergency Management Committee (Brisbane).

• Mr Collett C., Assistant Secretary – Emergency Management Policy Branch Attorney General’s Department (Canberra).

• Ms Frittum J., Manager Policy and Strategy – [SA Fire and Emergency Services] (SAFECOM).

• Mr Holt J., Project Officer – Community Engagement Sub-Committee National Emergency Management Committee (Brisbane).

• Ms Hunt S., Assistant Secretary – Emergency Management Policy Branch Attorney General’s Department (Canberra).

• Mr Hyatt N., Senior Policy Officer – Infrastructure and Emergency Management (South Australia).

• Mr McLoughlin T., Manager Policy and Strategy – [SA Fire and Emergency Services] (SAFECOM).

• Ms Speechley C., Policy Manager – Department of the Premier and Cabinet (Adelaide).



• Dr Mwanri L., Course Coordinator, Masters of Health and International Development - School of Public Health, Flinders University.

• Mr Packer G., Director of Studies - University of Adelaide.

• Dr Stehlik T., Senior Lecturer - School of Education, University of South Australia.

• Mr Wray L., Research Officer - Griffith University.

Reports on the progress and key deliverables of the project were provided to the Attorney Generals Department Project Lead. A presentation on the project was also provided to the National Emergency Management Committee Subcommittees: Community Engagement, and, Risk Assessment Measurement and Mitigation.

Working Group

The members of the Working Group were drawn from the universities that comprise the Torrens Resilience Institute as well as other complementary government and sector experts. They were chosen from different specialties to contribute their varied expertise, to assist with the development of the definition of community disaster resilience and the key elements of a model and criteria for the Scorecard. The members of the Working Group include:-

• Mr Boyd S., Manager of Community Development - Adelaide Hills Council.

• Dr Burrows L., Lecturer - School of Education, Flinders University.

• Mr Button C., Manager of Health and Regulatory Services - Adelaide Hills Council.

• Dr Cottrell A., Senior Lecturer - James Cook University, Human Geography.

• Associate Professor Delpachitra S., Finance - Business School, Flinders University.

• Mr Duldig P., Director – IT Services, University of Adelaide.

• Professor Griffith M., Structural Engineering - School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide.

• Ms Malcolm F., Board Member - Queensland Council of Social Services.

• Associate Professor McIntyre J. – School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University.

• Mr McAslan A., Academic Staff – Centre for International Security and Resilience Cranfield University, England.



The project design included a number of stages to achieve the key deliverables (See Table1).

Table 1. Key Deliverables

Milestones Tasks Completion1. Scoping study Conduct a scoping study to clarify the

key stakeholders, scope, approach, methodologies, deliverables and timings of the project.

Advisory and Working Groups established for the project.

2. Literature review of existing models Examine the suitability and effectiveness of existing models for measuring the ability of human systems to cope and be resilient in the face of adversity.

Literature search undertaken and review provided to Working and Advisory Groups.

3. Develop definition and model of community disaster resilience

Develop a definition and model of community disaster resilience.

Community disaster resilience definition and model developed.

4. Develop tool for general use Build a tool using the model with measures and indicators for general use. A key part of this stage was the development of user-friendly guidelines and examples.

Using desktop exercises, the tool was applied to a range of indicative communities against a range of potential threats and disruptive events.

Draft Scorecard and measurements developed.

Guidelines, glossary and information sheet on data resources developed.

Draft Scorecard trialed in three sites, one rural and two metropolitan.

5. Field test tool in at least three States/Territories

The tool and guidelines were field tested in four communities.

Community trial sites in South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland.

6. Prepare final report The final report completed and deliverables presented ready for distribution.

Final report presented October 2012.

SECTION TWO: EVALUATION METHOD



2.1 Stage 1: Literature review

The scientific and grey literature reveals a wealth of information, definitions, frameworks and models of community resilience. Many articles provide practical tools that can be used by communities to build their overall resilience to issues that may affect their health and wellbeing. Those articles that specifically consider community disaster resilience have a focus on individuals and community vulnerability and risk assessments. Despite the range and depth of material, there is no standard definition of community disaster resilience and no published validated tool that communities can easily use to assess their resilience in preparing for an emergency event at the community level, rather than the individual level.

The existing papers and reports collated by the literature review have made it possible for the Project Working Group to compare models and frameworks and to tease out reoccurring themes and concepts to develop a tool that community members can use to measure community disaster resilience. By having such a tool that can be used at the community level the process of community engagement, including conversations and awareness about the hazards and risks in their local area will begin. This conversation provides a good first step to building community disaster resilience.

2.2 Stage 2: Development of a definition of community disaster resilience

Through TRI’s four partner universities, a range of experts who were members of the Working Group examined the suitability and effectiveness of the definitions and models from the literature and worked with the Project Team to define community disaster resilience.

Based on a synthesis of the data from the literature a definition of community disaster resilience was developed by the Project Team, Working and Advisory Groups.



2.3 Stage 3: Develop a model and tool to measure community disaster resilience

The model of community disaster resilience is based on sets of physical, organisational and social capital, which all communities possess to varying degrees and can be used to respond to one or more disruptive events. Four components of community resilience in an emergency or disaster were identified which the Working Group considered summarised resilience.

These are:

1. How connected are the members of your community?

2. What is the level of risk and vulnerability in your community?

3. What procedures support community disaster planning, response and recovery?

4. What emergency planning, response and recovery resources are available in your community?

This resulted in the development of a tool that consists of a number of components:

1. Community Disaster Resilience Scorecard. This Scorecard comprises detailed questions and assessments of each of the four components of disaster resilience. The choice of criteria is not an exact science. The selected criteria were developed from the best available evidence related to the four components of community disaster resilience. If a specific criterion were supported by the literature and provided a readily accessible data source it was used. In all other cases, the criteria were selected by best judgement of the experts on the Working Group with input from the Advisory Group.

2. A guideline that outlines the process for completion of the Scorecard.

3. Glossary of terms used in the Scorecard, ensuring consistent interpretation.

4. Resource sheet to assist the Community Scorecard Working Group to find data sources required to assess their community disaster resilience.

The Working Group considered five versions of the Scorecard. Version Five of the Scorecard was reviewed in one rural and one metropolitan council area in South Australia with members of the local government and community. This was to gain feedback on the components of resilience identified in the Scorecard, the flow of the different components, the language and the criteria used to score the level of community disaster resilience. The feedback was presented to the Working Group for further discussion and changes were made resulting in a final working draft, Version Six, being presented to the Advisory Group for the test site trial.



2.4 Stage 4: Testing the model and tool

The original proposal was to trial the tool with three communities in separate jurisdictions across Australia. Six communities expressed a willingness to participate, of which four in four jurisdictions completed the process. Two of the six communities willing to participate in the trial were unfortunately unable to do so within the time allocated for this stage of the project.

The Project Team with the Working and Advisory Groups identified a number of communities across the different Australian jurisdictions to be contacted to participate as a test site for the Scorecard. The communities represented a mixture of rural and metropolitan areas as well as those communities that had recently experienced a disaster and those that had not. With support of the Commonwealth Attorney Generals Department a letter was sent to the Mayor or Chief Executive Officer of the identified local government organisations seeking their support to participate in the trial.

The Project Team liaised with a representative from each participating local government service to provide more information about the project. Two Project Team members attended the first meeting of the Community Scorecard Working Group in each community to explain the process, note the response and any concerns or issues from the group. The Project Team also requested to attend the third and final meeting to evaluate the model, Scorecard and process with the local Community Scorecard Working Group.

2.5 Stage 5: Evaluation

Evaluate feedback from the test sites on the model and the tool.

The Project Team attended the third and final meeting to observe how the Community Scorecard Working Group used the Scorecard. They were asked whether or not they thought that the components in the Scorecard adequately assessed community disaster resilience. Hard copies of the evaluation form and a self-addressed envelope were left for members to complete and return to the Project Team. An electronic version of the evaluation form was also offered.



3.1 Evaluation findings

Four communities participated as trial sites from South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The support of local government personnel was consistently excellent in all communities participating as trial sites. This highlighted the importance of the local government’s role in supporting this initiative by bringing the Community Scorecard Working Group together, providing the venue and in particular the personnel to coordinate the meetings and access information from the data bases, which many of the community members were unfamiliar with.

Evaluation Questions

The following questions were explored with each trial site Community Scorecard Working Group.

1. Did you understand the objective/purpose of completing this Scorecard to assess the community resilience to disasters?

All communities had clearly understood the purpose of completing the Scorecard. They consistently stated that it was a worthwhile process for any community to undertake. The exercise had also improved the community members’ understanding of the diversity of partners who play different but critical roles in supporting the resilience of a community to prepare for a potential disaster event.

2. Does the guideline and Toolkit provide clear explanation of what community disaster resilience is?

The majority of the trial sites felt the guideline and Toolkit provided clear information about the meaning of community disaster resilience and the different components of it. However, there was some general discussion about the term ‘resilience’ and what that means in the context of disaster response rather than as a general concept of resilience as a community. In addition, there was discussion on the use of the words ‘disaster’ verses ‘emergency’, in particular the communities’ view of what a disaster may or may not be and their willingness to take the disaster definition seriously, especially if a community had not experienced a significant event that had disrupted or potentially disrupted its functioning.

To address these discussions it was recommended that the definition of ‘resilience’ remain as it is, but is highlighted at the very beginning of the Toolkit as well as within the Scorecard to emphasise the context of the tool and why it is important to build disaster resilience for any community. It was also suggested that within the guideline and the Scorecard that the term emergency be used as well as disaster.

SECTION THREE: OUTCOMES FROM TRIAL SITES



3. Did you easily understand the guidelines/instructions provided to fill in the Scorecard?

All the communities easily understood the instructions provided to fill in the Scorecard. However, they wanted more explanation on the term ‘community’ and its boundaries and limits. This definition has now been provided in the guidelines.

The glossary and other supportive documents were perceived as comprehensive, though some admitted not having used them as the Scorecard was quite clear. Those who were not present at the first meeting of the Community Scorecard Working Group, when the process was explained by the research team, stated they were able to understand the objective and the process with the guidelines and instructions provided.

All communities stressed the importance of omitting ‘technical emergency management terms’ and to use lay language as far as possible throughout all parts of the Toolkit. There was also an emphasis from all communities that the Toolkit should be succinct, with the less to read the better.

The majority of the communities also felt the pictures used in the Toolkit were appropriate and meaningful, but suggested the addition of pictures of ‘disasters’ which were added to the final Toolkit.

4. Were you able to easily understand the different sections/items of the Scorecard?

The communities were able to understand the different sections of the Scorecard as being important components in the assessment of disaster resilience. The order of the sections was also considered to be logical. It was however suggested that the four components of resilience be introduced briefly at the front of the card and guideline, so that they can be seen quickly and be highlighted to ‘stand out’ using larger fonts at the top of each section of the Scorecard.

The questions under each of the four components on the Scorecard were thought to be important and relevant to the corresponding section. They felt it was a good mix of questions to be considered under each section. All communities mentioned that the questions facilitated good discussion in the group and some of the questions had not previously been thought about in relation to the preparation for an emergency or disaster.

The communities appreciated the inclusion of ‘self-assessment’ items on the Scorecard as it gave them an opportunity to hear the many views within the Working Group on some of the aspects of resilience.

The role of the Chair of the Community Scorecard Working Group plays an important part in making sure that all community members have an opportunity to participate equally in answering and scoring questions rather than allowing the ‘expert’ to dominate the discussion. Examples were given where the emergency personnel had indicated that an issue had been addressed and allocated a higher score, however the community members were not aware of or confident about these actions. Feedback was given by communities that this type of conversation was very informative and worthwhile for all involved.



5. Are there any items in your opinion which need to be modified, if so what are they?

The four sections of the Scorecard were discussed and some of the questions and measures were changed based on the feedback. In addition, it was expressed that providing examples in the case of several questions would help in explaining the item better. These changes were made to the final version of the Toolkit.

Commenting on the data sources, some felt the data were not easily accessible from the stated websites. They proposed the inclusion of direct links from the Scorecard to the relevant information page, where possible, rather than the website. This suggestion will become a recommendation along with the development of an electronic version of the Toolkit.

6. Did you find this exercise useful to improve the resilience of your community in the event of a disaster?

The communities strongly felt it was a good exercise, which improved their understanding of disaster resilience. Many were of the opinion that the initial exercise was a good starting point for them and the initial scores could be set as a benchmark to further improve their community’s resilience. The communities felt the process shed light on a range of emergency preparation and planning activities conducted by the local council, emergency services as well as different areas such as the education and health departments, which they had not considered before.

They also appreciated the knowledge they gained about their local community in listening to the conversations from different personnel in the Community Scorecard Working Group and from accessing data sources during the exercise as they were previously unaware of some of the information that was available.

The communities thought that it was useful to have members from many different areas of the community on the Working Group. There was a lot of discussion in all communities about the importance of marketing this Scorecard to get the community more interested and involved.

It was mentioned that for some communities, the local government and emergency services were required to be involved in a number of emergency or disaster risk assessment and mitigation activities. The Scorecard could be seen as ‘one more thing to do’ if it was not marketed well. It was further suggested that all of the emergency or disaster requirements could be incorporated into one package including the resilience Scorecard to prevent any duplication, and to promote the complementary nature of these activities. Further discussion on this point recognised that one of the valuable key points with the Scorecard was the process of bringing different personnel together and having the conversations about their community as they complete the Scorecard.

7. Were you able to identify actions to be undertaken to improve your community’s disaster resilience?

The communities all scored their resilience and identified at least one area that they would like to improve on, which otherwise they would not have thought of. Some of the activities were to be incorporated into the local council’s ‘Emergency Management Plans’.



8. Do you agree that this tool is measuring community disaster resilience?

Many were of the opinion that the tool effectively measures the resilience of a community in disasters. While some argued that the Scorecard provides a comprehensive measurement, the Project Team have concluded that the measurement of resilience is complex and the Scorecard represents an ‘adequate’ measure of communities’ disaster resilience. However, the positive response by communities to the items within the tool is very encouraging as it leads to the conclusion that the measures pass the ‘common sense’ test of the community and are acceptable, and likely to drive change in communities.

9. Any other comments

The process has brought together people from several fields and in some instances it was a good exercise to learn ‘who is doing what’. The communities stated that the composition of the working group is critical for the success of the process and wanted the final version to clearly indicate the different stakeholders that should be included. This was added to the introduction of the Toolkit as recommended. In addition, the process of completing the Scorecard with three meetings was seen as appropriate, though some thought it could be done in two meetings.

In addition, the communities felt strongly that further consideration should be given to attracting people from different areas within the community to be on the Community Scorecard Working Group, as it must not be seen as the council’s or emergency services’ activity and responsibility.

3.2 Conclusions

The testing of the Scorecard with a range of communities was extremely valuable as the feedback enabled the process and tool to be refined. This community friendly Scorecard is a workable tool for a community to measure its disaster resilience.

The definition of community disaster resilience was thought to be understandable and the four components of disaster resilience, their questions and criteria were considered appropriate measures of resilience at this time. The process was user friendly and the Community Scorecard Working Group enjoyed the discussions that the scoring generated, which proved to be just as valuable as the final score itself.

The outcome led to actions that will feedback into the cycle of quality improvement and resilience building for local government and the services participating in the Community Scorecard Working Group. The outcomes also need to be fed back into the community in a way that will engage their interest.

It was considered that the use of such tools would help identify the degree to which communities:

(1) are able to foresee and/or acknowledge threats and risks;

(2) work with the emergency services and other agencies, especially the local government to build disaster resilience;

(3) have a sense-of-community and social capital.

The biggest challenge remains however to develop willingness by the community to take on a collective responsibility to reduce the socio-economic impact of disruptive events, emergencies and disasters. The use of the Scorecard will positively contribute to this challenge.



This project produced a literature review, definition of community disaster resilience, designed a community disaster resilience model and a tool that is easy for community stakeholders to use, while keeping sufficient validity and rigour to enable a relatively effective and objective measurement of disaster resilience in a community.

All key deliverables for this project were achieved on time and within budget.

4.1 Literature Review

The literature review reveals a wealth of information, definitions, frameworks and models of community resilience. Many articles provide practical tools that can be used by communities to build their overall resilience to many issues that may affect their health and wellbeing. Those articles that focus specifically on community disaster resilience have a focus on individuals and community vulnerability and risk assessments. Despite the range and depth of material, there is no published validated tool that communities can practically use to measure their resilience in preparing for an event at the community level, rather than the individual level (See Appendix 2 for complete literature review).

4.2 Definition of community disaster resilience

The project assessed definitions and descriptions in scientific and grey literature and reached consensus through discussions within the Project Team, Working and Advisory Group members on the following definition. Beyond the resilience of individuals or individual organisations, your community will prove resilient in the event of a severe emergency or disaster when members of the population are connected to one another and work together, so that they are able to:

• function and sustain critical systems, even under stress;

• adapt to changes in the physical, social or economic environment;

• be self-reliant if external resources are limited or cut off; and

• learn from experience to improve over time.

SECTION FOUR: PROJECT KEY DELIVERABLES



4.3 Model: The Four Domains of Community Disaster Resilience

The model describes the identified four essential domains of community disaster resilience and is presented in Figure 1. It is argued that the four domains overlap and interact, making relatively equal contributions to building disaster resilience in the community. Should a domain be weakened, beyond its tipping point overall resilience will be affected. A balanced Scorecard approach addressing each domain will identify strengths and weaknesses in the key elements of each domain.

4.4 Final Tool

The final product of the project (PART B) includes five components:

• Community Disaster Resilience Scorecard guidelines.

• Working copy of the Scorecard

• Master copy of the Scorecard

• Scorecard Glossary of terms and data access resource sheet.

• Sample letters of invitation and draft agendas for the three meetings.

Figure 1. A model for community disaster resilience.

Available Resources

Risk and Vulnerability

Community Connectedness

Planning and Procedures

Resilience



Acronyms

AGD Attorney General’s Department

COAG Council of Australian Governments

NSDR National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. This sets out how the nation should aim to achieve the COAG vision. It emphasises that disaster resilience is not solely the domain of the emergency services, rather it involves society as a whole: governments, local authorities, organisations in the private and public sectors, NGOs and volunteers, households and communities. The resilience of communities is particularly important.

NEMC National Emergency Management Committee

NEMP National Emergency Management Project

TRI Torrens Resilience Institute was established by the Government of South Australia at the International University Precinct in Adelaide, South Australia to improve the capacity of organisations and societies to respond to disruptive challenges, which have the potential to overwhelm local disaster management capabilities and plans. The mission of the TRI is to assist the Federal and State Governments, the emergency services, organisations and civil society enhance their leadership and management capabilities, and thus enable them to prepare for, and respond better to, disruptive challenges. In addition to building national and community resilience within Australia, TRI assists the Federal and State Governments achieve their foreign policy and humanitarian objectives by developing resilient national capacities in the countries of South East Asia and the Pacific Rim.

Appendix 1



Appendix 2May 2012

Torrens Resilience Institute.

Measuring Community Disaster Resilience: A Review of the Literature

National Emergency Management Plan: Project NP 1112-0015

Introduction

Resilience is a concept that has recently found its way into human systems. Taken from the Latin word, resilire, which means ‘to rebound’ or ‘to recoil’, it had become an important concept in 19th Century British naval architecture and materials science, where it was used as a measurement of the comparative strengths of the various woods and materials used in the construction of the Royal Navy’s warships. Scientist Robert Mallet worked on this concept and developed a measure, known as the modulus of resilience, for assessing the capacity of materials to stand up to adverse conditions. This measure has been used in other applications, notably the evaluation of the suitability of materials used for building homes and public infrastructure (McAslan 2010, p.2). Lately, however, resilience has been used with increasing frequency in areas and disciplines as varied as health, medicine, economics, information management, security, emergency management, and several fields among the various social sciences. It has been used in the analysis of individual human characteristics, as well as of human systems such as organisations, institutions and communities (Braes & Brooks 2010, p.15).

The National Emergency Management Plan (NEMP) funded project presently being undertaken by the Torrens Resilience Institute (TRI) is to develop a useful tool for measuring the resilience of Australian communities against disasters. The importance of strengthening local communities against disaster events by enabling them to determine how resilient they are against these adverse situations is critical. As noted in the Commonwealth National Strategy for Disaster Resilience it is important to build upon our existing emergency planning arrangements, to focus more on action-based resilience planning to strengthen local capacity and capability, with greater emphasis on community engagement and a better understanding of the diversity, needs, strengths and vulnerabilities within communities.

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience goes on to say that community resilience can be defined in many ways. Rather than define disaster resilience, the strategy focuses on the “common characteristics of disaster resilient communities, individuals and organisations. These characteristics are: functioning well while under stress; successful adaptation; self-reliance, and social capacity. Resilient communities also share the importance of social support systems, such as neighbourhoods, family and kinship networks, social cohesion, mutual interest groups, and mutual self-help groups” (2011, p4). Furthermore the strategy identifies with the Insurance Council of Australia’s (2008, p4) understanding of resilience “Communities that develop a high level of resilience are better able to withstand a crisis event and have an enhanced ability to recover from residual impacts. Communities that possess resilience characteristics can also arrive on the other side of a crisis in a stronger position than pre-event.” The United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Resilience (UN/ISDR) has defined resilience as a desirable property



of natural and human systems in the face of a range of potential stresses and hazards. This property involves the capacity of such systems to absorb the impact of such hazards and then recover or return to their original state (Klein, Nicholls & Thomalla 2003, p.35).

Disasters often occur in unexpected forms or magnitudes and in unexpected locations, making it impossible to prevent, defend or address all such threats. Thus resilience has become an increasingly important concept for community disaster management and recovery (Zhou, Wang, Wan & Jia 2012, p.22). This is especially important for Australia, not only because Australia’s unique environment includes regular hazard events and incidents among its communities every year, but also because in recent times, many of these hazard events have been unanticipated, unusually massive, and have resulted in serious consequences against Australia’s affected communities. The ability of an Australian community to measure and assess its own resilience thus contributes towards its ability to become stronger and better able to deal with, survive and recover from disasters.

The Literature Search

The literature search was conducted from information published on measuring community resilience within the context of disaster preparation, response and recovery, focusing in particular on tools that have been developed to measure community disaster resilience. An exhaustive search had been conducted in a number of online databases to seek out relevant papers, book chapters, policy documents, and various other publications. The keywords used in this searched consisted of two sets, namely, ‘Measurement and Community Resilience’ and ‘Measurement tools and Community Resilience and Disaster.’ The main databases searched, as well as the results obtained were:

• Pro-Quest Central:

o Measurement and Community Resilience: 3,964 results

o Measurement tools and Community Resilience: 2,369 results

• Springer Link:


o Measurement tools and Community Resilience: 2,909 results

• SAGE Journals Online:


o Measurement tools and Community Resilience: 823 results



These databases were chosen on the basis of the wide selection of subjects and topics to which they enable access. The searches were restricted only to scholarly articles and those that have been peer reviewed. The majority of the academic publications included in this review have been obtained from these databases. Most of the results obtained were duplicates among the data bases, or were not relevant to the community self-assessment focus of this project. Articles which had no content or clear relationship to the development of resilience measures were set aside. All in all, after having eliminated what was not needed, 65 relevant publications were included.

Google was also searched for non-academic publications/ grey literature, and out of 193,000 results, 50 were selected as being the most relevant to this project. These were systematically reviewed and further numbers were eliminated from this review. Additional material suggested by the members of this project’s working-group have also been reviewed, and if found relevant, were included here. The search continues and the literature review is regularly updated by TRI.

This literature review has contributed significantly to the initial considerations by the Project Working Group for developing the model and tool to measure community disaster resilience.

Some Initial Findings

The literature describes various factors that relate to community resilience, though there is very little discussion about how to measure community disaster resilience, specifically prior to an event as an approach to disaster preparedness.

The themes that have emerged from the publication include using mathematical modelling to measure community resilience; components of community resilience; measuring social vulnerability, and frameworks for understanding community resilience.

Complex Mathematical Modelling

A broad and general summary of the publications in this review seem to indicate that many academic publications, most of which are in the form of academic journal articles, devise models that require complex and sophisticated mathematical modelling and calculation of community resilience or one aspect of this such as infrastructure (Rose, A 2004; Arianoutsou M, Koukoulas S & Kazanis D 2011; Zobel CW 2011). Though these may be relevant from a theoretical perspective they are not tools that can be easily used by community members to measure and understand their degree of disaster resilience. Components of these models appear, however, in many other publications discussed below.



Components of Community Resilience

Both published articles and the non-academic publications have numerous similarities, in that community resilience measures are a function of different components, characteristics or aspects of a community. In many cases, authors of these publications have arrived at similar or comparable components. Some authors call them ‘capitals’ such as social, economic, health, political, physical (Cocklin, C. & Dibden, J. 2005; Mayunga, J.S. 2007; Callaghan, E.G. & Colton, J 2008). Other authors call them ‘aspects’, ‘resources’, ‘enablers’, or ‘outcomes’. There are differences in emphasis, focus, or prioritisation, but most publications have two or more similar components.

This literature has been the most useful in trying to draw out the comparable components that, if measured, give an indication of a much broader community resilience approach. An example of this comes from the work of Maguire & Cartwright (2008) who developed resilience criteria consisting of equity, quality, sustainability and ownership; in measuring resilience, they recommend in their Toolkit that its users think of their community-assets when evaluating their communities. These assets comprise of people and their skills, knowledge, experience and motivation, encompassing associations or groups of people working with common interests as volunteers, institutions or paid groups of people who are structurally organised. Community assets also include physical assets and the connections between these physical assets.

A different approach based on similar concepts is that proposed by Longstaff, P H., et al. (2010), in which resilience is identified through a social assessment tool that assesses the following connected issues: the

internal community structure, the community history and community vulnerabilities. The assessment of community resources and adaptive capacities are also included in this grouping of connected social issues. The value for measuring community connectedness emerges as one item that needs to be captured in a community disaster resilience tool.

Adding to these examples of key concepts for understanding community resilience Hallegatte, S. (2011) takes a systems approach, which can be assessed through subsystems analysis using a number of community characteristics. The subsystems mentioned by Hallegate (2011) include diversity, robustness, connectedness, functional cross-scale links and learning capacity.

These three examples demonstrate the different types of approaches the various authors have considered, but with similar concepts emerging. There is however not one usable published tool that measures community disaster resilience.

A number of other assessments and possible measures of resilience mentioned in the literature specifically relate to critical infrastructures, such as those designed for flood mitigation, water supply, information technology and buildings (Klein, R. J. T., Nichols, R. J. & Thomalla, F 2003; Tierney, K. & Bruneau, M. 2007; Hallegatte, S. 2008; Fekete, A. 2011; Frommer, B. 2011). These articles highlight the importance of having in place appropriate risk assessments for community disaster planning, response and recovery.

Many of the articles on building community disaster resilience discuss the concept of resilience building, at either an individual or community level, but after rather than before a disaster event (Cox, R.S. & Perry, K-ME 2011, Millen D 2011; Zobel, C.W. 2011) when prevention activities could aid a community to recover much more quickly.



Measuring Social Vulnerability

There were a number of articles that sought to measure social vulnerability as an indicator of community resilience. This concept of vulnerability involves, not only specific disadvantaged groups within a community, but also there is a strong emphasis on socio-economic factors that may affect the quality of community resilience (Fekete, A., Damm, M. & Birkmann, J. 2009; Flanagan, BE., Gregory. EW., Hallisey, EJ., Heitgerd, JL. & Lewis, B. (2011). For the purpose of this project community the literature clearly supports vulnerability as an important consideration to be included within a community disaster measurement tool. In particular what is the level of risk and vulnerability in the community especially for those who do not speak English, are new migrants and the frail elderly.

Frameworks for Understanding Community Resilience

Other articles and papers reviewed feature frameworks for better understanding the concept of community resilience. A number focus on processes or procedures that would measure community resilience (Centre for Community Enterprise 2000; Bay Localize 2009; James Cook University 2010).

Many non-academic papers, such as those published by non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), civic organisations, or even a few academic writers and researchers, have designed models and tools that do not require sophisticated mathematical knowledge or skill to use (Emerald Community House 2011; Emergency Volunteering 2011)

Summary

This project seeks to design a community disaster resilience measurement model with a tool that would be easy for non-academic community stakeholders to use, while keeping sufficient effectiveness and rigour to enable an objective measurement of disaster resilience in a community. The literature review reveals a wealth of information, definitions, frameworks and models of community resilience. Many articles provide practical tools that can be used by communities to build their overall resilience to many issues that may affect their health and wellbeing. Those articles that focus specifically on community disaster resilience have a focus on individuals and community vulnerability and risk assessments. Despite the range and depth of material, there is no published validated tool that communities can use to measure their resilience in preparing for an event at the community level, rather than the individual level.

The existing papers and publications in the literature review have made it possible for the Project Working Group to compare models and frameworks and to tease out the reoccurring themes and concepts to develop a tool that community members can use to measure community disaster resilience. By having such a tool that can be used at the community level the process of community engagement, conversations and awareness about the hazards and risks in their local area will begin. This is the first step to building community disaster resilience.



References

Bay Localize. 2009. Community Resilience Toolkit: A Workshop Guide for Community Resilience Planning, Oakland, CA.

Braes, B. & Brooks, D. 2010. ‘Organisational resilience: a propositional study to understand and identify the essential concepts’, 3rd Australian Security and Intelligence Conference, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 30 November 2010, pp. 14-22.

Callaghan,E.G. & Colton, J. 2008. Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities: A Balancing of Community Capital Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10 (6Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 931-942.

Centre for Community Enterprise. 2000. The Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for Rural Recovery and Renewal CCE Publications, Port Alberni, BC, Canada.

Centre for Community Enterprise. 2000. Tools and Techniques for Community Recovery and Renewal CCE Publications, Port Alberni, BC, Canada.

Cocklin, C. & Dibden, J. 2005 Sustainability and Change in Rural Australia. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2011. National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, Attorney-General’s Department, Barton ACT Australia.

Cox, RS. & Perry, K-ME. 2011 like a fish out of water: reconsidering disaster recovery and the role of place and social capital in community disaster resilience, American Journal Community Psychology. Vol48:395-411.

Emerald Community House. 2011 The Go List: A Resource for Bushfire Planning and Information. Emerald Community House, Interactive Website www.thegolist.org.au. Viewed April 2012.

Emergency Volunteering. 2011 Disaster Readiness Index. Volunteering Qld. & Emergency Management Queensland. Interactive Website http://www.emergencyvolunteering.com.au/home/knowledge/readiness-index Viewed April 2012.

Fekete, A. 2011 Common Criteria for the Assessment of Critical Infrastructures International Journal Disaster Risk Science Vol 2, No.1: 15-24.

Fekete, A. Damm, M. & Birkmann, J. 2009 Scales as a Challenge for Vulnerability Assessment Natural Hazards, 55 (2010), Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 729-747.

Flanagan, B.E., Gregory. E.W., Hallisey, E.J., Heitgerd, J.L., & Lewis, B. 2011. A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management: Vol. 8:Iss 1, Article 3 Berkeley Electronic Press.

Frommer, B. 2011. Climate Change and the Resilient Society: Utopia or Realistic Option for German Regions? Natural Hazards, 58, Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 85-101.

Hallegatte, S. 2008. What Determines Farmers’ Resilience towards ENSO-related Drought? An Empirical Assessment in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia Climatic Change, Vol 86, Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 291-307.

Insurance Council of Australia. 2008. Improving Community Resilience to Extreme Weather Events, Insurance Council of Australia, Sydney.

James Cook University. 2010. Know your Patch to Grow your Patch. Understanding Communities Project Bushfire. CRC and Centre for Disaster Studies, James Cook University.



Klein, R.J.T., Nichols, R. J. and Thomalla, F. 2003 Resilience to Natural Hazards: How Useful is this Concept? Environmental Hazards, 5 Elsevier, pp. 35-45.

Longstaff, P.H., et al. 2010. Building Resilient Communities: Tools for Assessment. Institute for National Security and Counter terrorism, Syracuse University.

Maguire, B. & Cartwright, S. 2008. Assessing a Community’s Capacity to Manage Change: A Resilience Approach to Social Assessment Bureau of Rural Sciences, Commonwealth of Australia.

Mayunga, J.S. 2007. Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A Capital Based Approach Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, Munich.

McAslan, A. 2010. ‘The concept of resilience: understanding its origins, meaning and utility’, 14 March 2010, Torrens Resilience Institute, Adelaide, pp. 1-13.

Millen, D. 2011. Deliberative Democracy in Disaster recovery Reframing community engagement for sustainable outcomes Centre for Citizenship and public Policy, University of Western Sydney.

Tierney, K. & Bruneau, M. 2007. Conceptualising and Measuring Resilience: A Key to Disaster Loss Reduction TR News 250, May-June 2007, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Zhou, H., Wang, J., Wan, J & Jia, H. 2010, ‘Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective’, Natural Hazards, 53, Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 21-41.

Zobel, C.W. 2011. Representing Perceived Tradeoffs in Defining Disaster Resilience Decision Support Systems, 50 Elsevier, pp. 394-403.

Dis

clai

mer

This

mat

eria

l was

pro

duce

d w

ith fu

ndin

g pr

ovid

ed b

y th

e A

ttor

ney-

Gen

eral

’s D

epar

tmen

t thr

ough

the

Nat

iona

l Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent P

rogr

am.

The

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stitu

te,

Att

orne

y-G

ener

al’s

Dep

artm

ent a

nd th

e A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

t mak

e no

repr

esen

tatio

ns a

bout

the

suita

bilit

y of

the

info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d in

this

doc

umen

t or a

ny m

ater

ial r

elat

ed to

this

do

cum

ent f

or a

ny p

urpo

se.

The

docu

men

t is

prov

ided

‘as

is’ w

ithou

t war

rant

y of

any

kin

d to

the

exte

nt p

erm

itted

by

law

. Th

e To

rren

s Re

silie

nce

Inst

itute

, Att

orne

y-G

ener

al’s

Dep

artm

ent

and

the

Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent h

ereb

y di

scla

im a

ll w

arra

ntie

s an

d co

nditi

ons

with

rega

rd to

this

info

rmat

ion,

incl

udin

g al

l im

plie

d w

arra

ntie

s an

d co

nditi

ons

of m

erch

anta

bilit

y, fi

tnes

s fo

r par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se, t

itle

and

non-

infri

ngem

ent.

In n

o ev

ent s

hall

the

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stitu

te, A

ttor

ney-

Gen

eral

’s D

epar

tmen

t or t

he A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

t be

liabl

e fo

r any

spe

cial

, in

dire

ct o

r con

sequ

entia

l dam

ages

or a

ny d

amag

es w

hats

oeve

r res

ultin

g fro

m th

e lo

ss o

f use

, dat

a or

pro

fits,

whe

ther

in a

n ac

tion

of c

ontr

act,

negl

igen

ce o

r oth

er to

rtio

us a

ctio

n, a

risin

g ou

t of o

r in

conn

ectio

n w

ith th

e us

e of

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e in

this

doc

umen

t. T

he d

ocum

ent o

r mat

eria

l rel

ated

to th

is d

ocum

ent c

ould

incl

ude

tech

nica

l ina

ccur

acie

s or

typo

grap

hica

l er

rors

.

Dev

elop

ing

a m

odel

and

too

l to

mea

sure

com

mun

ity

dis

aste

r re

silie

nce

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd T

oolk

it

Oct

ober

201

2

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

12/1

2/20

12

4:06

:59

PM


Dis

clai

mer

This

mat

eria

l was

pro

duce

d w

ith fu

ndin

g pr

ovid

ed b

y th

e A

ttor

ney-

Gen

eral

’s D

epar

tmen

t thr

ough

the

Nat

iona

l Em

erge

ncy

Man

agem

ent P

rogr

am.

The

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stitu

te,

Att

orne

y-G

ener

al’s

Dep

artm

ent a

nd th

e A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

t mak

e no

repr

esen

tatio

ns a

bout

the

suita

bilit

y of

the

info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d in

this

doc

umen

t or a

ny m

ater

ial r

elat

ed to

this

do

cum

ent f

or a

ny p

urpo

se.

The

docu

men

t is

prov

ided

‘as

is’ w

ithou

t war

rant

y of

any

kin

d to

the

exte

nt p

erm

itted

by

law

. Th

e To

rren

s Re

silie

nce

Inst

itute

, Att

orne

y-G

ener

al’s

Dep

artm

ent

and

the

Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent h

ereb

y di

scla

im a

ll w

arra

ntie

s an

d co

nditi

ons

with

rega

rd to

this

info

rmat

ion,

incl

udin

g al

l im

plie

d w

arra

ntie

s an

d co

nditi

ons

of m

erch

anta

bilit

y, fi

tnes

s fo

r par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se, t

itle

and

non-

infri

ngem

ent.

In n

o ev

ent s

hall

the

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stitu

te, A

ttor

ney-

Gen

eral

’s D

epar

tmen

t or t

he A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

t be

liabl

e fo

r any

spe

cial

, in

dire

ct o

r con

sequ

entia

l dam

ages

or a

ny d

amag

es w

hats

oeve

r res

ultin

g fro

m th

e lo

ss o

f use

, dat

a or

pro

fits,

whe

ther

in a

n ac

tion

of c

ontr

act,

negl

igen

ce o

r oth

er to

rtio

us a

ctio

n, a

risin

g ou

t of o

r in

conn

ectio

n w

ith th

e us

e of

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e in

this

doc

umen

t. T

he d

ocum

ent o

r mat

eria

l rel

ated

to th

is d

ocum

ent c

ould

incl

ude

tech

nica

l ina

ccur

acie

s or

typo

grap

hica

l er

rors

.

Dev

elop

ing

a m

odel

and

too

l to

mea

sure

com

mun

ity

dis

aste

r re

silie

nce

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd T

oolk

it

Oct

ober

201

2

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

12/1

2/20

12

4:06

:59

PM


2M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd T

oolk

itW

elco

me

to th

e Co

mm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce S

core

card

To

olki

t. Y

ou a

re h

ere

beca

use

you

are

inte

rest

ed in

hel

ping

yo

ur c

omm

unity

to b

e pr

epar

ed, r

espo

nd a

nd re

cove

r m

ore

effec

tivel

y sh

ould

an

emer

genc

y or

dis

aste

r occ

ur.

This

reso

urce

has

bee

n de

sign

ed fo

r you

as

a pa

rt o

f th

e A

ustr

alia

n N

atio

nal S

trat

egy

for D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

, es

peci

ally

for t

he u

se o

f com

mun

ities

inte

rest

ed in

sel

f-as

sess

men

t of t

heir

pote

ntia

l res

ilien

ce a

nd to

dev

elop

a

sprin

gboa

rd fo

r an

actio

n pl

an to

str

engt

hen

resi

lienc

e.

This

Too

lkit

has

all o

f the

pie

ces

need

ed b

y th

e le

ader

or

coor

dina

tor o

f the

pro

cess

, and

incl

udes

wor

king

mat

eria

ls

to b

e di

strib

uted

to c

omm

unity

mem

bers

par

ticip

atin

g in

th

e pr

oces

s.

Wor

king

toge

ther

to c

ompl

ete

the

Scor

ecar

d, y

ou a

nd

fello

w p

artic

ipan

ts w

ill le

arn

mor

e ab

out y

our c

omm

unity

an

d its

reso

urce

s, an

d w

ill b

e st

imul

ated

to c

onsi

der a

ctio

n st

eps

that

will

sta

nd y

ou in

goo

d st

ead,

not

onl

y in

the

face

of

dis

aste

r but

on

a da

y-to

-day

bas

is.

The

proc

ess

is n

ot d

ifficu

lt, a

nd th

e tim

e in

vest

men

t is

mod

est.

The

sco

re y

ou id

entif

y is

for y

our u

se in

taki

ng

ongo

ing

actio

ns to

str

engt

hen

your

com

mun

ity.

We

hope

yo

u w

ill e

njoy

as

wel

l as

lear

n.

The

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stit

ute

Team

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM

3M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Intr

oduc

tion

to th

e To

olki

t ....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

....4

Get

ting

the

proc

ess

star

ted

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......6

Wor

king

cop

y of

the

Scor

ecar

d ....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

...9

Com

mun

ity M

aste

r Cop

y of

the

Scor

ecar

d.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.15

Revi

ewin

g th

e Sc

orec

ard

and

Nex

t Ste

ps ...

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

......2

1

App

endi

ces

• G

loss

ary

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

...22

• Sa

mpl

e le

tter

of i

nvita

tion

to th

e Sc

orec

ard

Wor

king

Gro

up....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....2

4

• Sa

mpl

e le

tter

of i

nvita

tion

to th

e Sc

orec

ard

Wor

king

Gro

up C

hair

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

...25

• Sa

mpl

e ag

enda

s fo

r Wor

king

Gro

up M

eetin

gs ...

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

...26

Tab

le o

f Con

tent

s

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 3

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM


4M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

emer

genc

y, a

nd c

ould

wel

l be

surp

rised

to d

isco

ver t

hat

reco

very

is m

uch

mor

e di

fficu

lt th

an a

nyon

e th

ough

t.

This

Com

mun

ity D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd is

you

r too

l; an

ear

ly s

tep

tow

ards

und

erst

andi

ng w

hich

of t

he li

nes

depi

cted

bel

ow w

ill b

e yo

ur to

wn’

s st

ory.

Emer

genc

ies

and

disa

ster

s ca

n ha

ppen

, alm

ost a

ny

time

or a

ny p

lace

, and

thin

king

ahe

ad to

reco

very

is

impo

rtan

t. T

hat i

s w

hy A

ustr

alia

has

a N

atio

nal

Stra

tegy

for D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

(htt

p://

ww

w.e

m.g

ov.

au/P

ublic

atio

ns/P

rogr

am%

20pu

blic

atio

ns/P

ages

/N

atio

nalS

trat

egyf

orD

isas

terR

esili

ence

.asp

x). I

nlan

d to

wns

m

ay n

ot n

eed

to p

repa

re fo

r tsu

nam

is o

r cyc

lone

s; flo

ods

gene

rally

do

not h

appe

n fa

r fro

m w

ater

cour

ses;

bush

fire

s ha

ve h

appe

ned

in e

very

sta

te a

nd te

rrito

ry o

f Aus

tral

ia.

Epid

emic

s or

indu

stria

l and

tran

spor

tatio

n em

erge

ncie

s (e

.g.,

chem

ical

leak

age,

fire

, and

trai

n de

railm

ent)

are

po

ssib

le.

Ever

y co

mm

unity

in A

ustr

alia

, lar

ge o

r sm

all,

has

som

e de

gree

of v

ulne

rabi

lity

to d

isas

ter o

r lar

ge s

cale

Intr

oduc

tion

to

the

Tool

kit

Tim

e

Value

SHO

CK o

r STR

ESS

Colla

pse

Resi

lienc

eAv

aila

ble

Reso

urce

sRi

sk a

nd

Vuln

erab

ility

Com

mun

ity C

onne

cted

ness

Plan

ning

and

Pro

cedu

res

Resi

lienc

e

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 4

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM

5M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Def

init

ion

of c

omm

unit

y d

isas

ter

resi

lienc

e

Beyo

nd th

e re

silie

nce

of in

divi

dual

s or

indi

vidu

al

orga

nisa

tions

, you

r com

mun

ity w

ill p

rove

resi

lient

in th

e ev

ent o

f a s

ever

e em

erge

ncy

or d

isas

ter w

hen

mem

bers

of

the

popu

latio

n ar

e co

nnec

ted

to o

ne a

noth

er a

nd w

ork

toge

ther

, so

that

they

are

abl

e to

:

• fu

nctio

n an

d su

stai

n cr

itica

l sys

tem

s, ev

en u

nder

str

ess;

• ad

apt t

o ch

ange

s in

the

phys

ical

, soc

ial o

r eco

nom

ic

envi

ronm

ent;

• be

sel

f-rel

iant

if e

xter

nal r

esou

rces

are

lim

ited

or c

ut o

ff;

and

• le

arn

from

exp

erie

nce

to im

prov

e ov

er ti

me.

Som

e of

the

info

rmat

ion

need

ed to

com

plet

e th

e Sc

orec

ard

will

com

e fro

m o

ffici

al c

ensu

s or

sim

ilar

info

rmat

ion,

and

one

or m

ore

indi

vidu

als

may

be

task

ed w

ith g

athe

ring

som

e of

the

need

ed in

form

atio

n.

How

ever

, the

Sco

reca

rd s

houl

d be

com

plet

ed th

roug

h an

inte

ract

ive

proc

ess

that

invo

lves

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f the

lo

cal g

over

nmen

t and

indi

vidu

als

from

the

com

mun

ity,

incl

udin

g so

me

who

may

not

see

issu

es th

roug

h th

e sa

me

lens

. Th

e re

sults

sho

uld

be w

idel

y sh

ared

as

a pa

rt o

f th

e st

rate

gy to

take

act

ion

tow

ard

incr

ease

d co

mm

unity

re

silie

nce.

It is

not

pos

sibl

e to

pla

n im

prov

emen

ts w

ithou

t kno

win

g w

here

you

are

sta

rtin

g. T

he C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Scor

ecar

d is

one

par

t of t

he p

roce

ss n

eces

sary

to h

elp

a co

mm

unity

(a to

wn,

a re

gion

al c

ounc

il, a

dis

tric

t) b

ecom

e m

ore

resi

lient

in th

e fa

ce o

f maj

or e

mer

genc

ies

or d

isas

ters

. Th

is S

core

card

may

be

of e

ven

grea

ter h

elp

to a

com

mun

ity

that

has

not

had

rece

nt e

xper

ienc

e w

ith a

n em

erge

ncy

even

t tha

n it

is to

thos

e w

ho li

ve in

are

as w

ith fr

eque

ntly

oc

curr

ing

chal

leng

es s

uch

as fl

oodi

ng o

r cyc

lone

s.

The

com

plet

ed S

core

card

will

pro

vide

a p

oint

-in-t

ime

snap

shot

of s

ome

key

mea

sure

s im

port

ant t

o re

silie

nce,

pr

ovid

ing

guid

ance

on

aspe

cts

of c

omm

unity

life

that

sh

ould

rece

ive

atte

ntio

n in

ord

er to

incr

ease

resi

lienc

e an

d st

reng

then

resi

lienc

e ov

er ti

me.

Usi

ng th

e Sc

orec

ard

at a

nnua

l int

erva

ls w

ill a

llow

you

to tr

ack

your

pro

gres

s on

sel

ecte

d ac

tion

area

s, an

d to

iden

tify

any

new

are

as

need

ing

atte

ntio

n.

Each

com

pone

nt o

f res

ilien

ce is

sco

red

from

1 to

5,

with

5 b

eing

the

high

est l

evel

of r

esili

ence

. Th

e sc

orin

g pr

oces

s is

not

a p

reci

se s

tatis

tical

pro

cess

, but

rath

er a

be

st a

ppro

xim

atio

n of

how

eac

h el

emen

t fits

into

ove

rall

com

mun

ity re

silie

nce,

and

you

r bes

t loc

al ju

dgem

ent a

nd

know

ledg

e ar

e w

hat c

ount

s. W

here

sco

ring

is b

ased

on

num

eric

info

rmat

ion,

suc

h as

a fi

gure

from

the

curr

ent

cens

us, t

he 1

-5 ra

nge

was

est

ablis

hed

base

d on

the

curr

ent l

itera

ture

on

the

com

pone

nts

of re

silie

nce.

In

mos

t ca

ses,

a de

finiti

on o

r an

exam

ple

of w

hat m

ight

lead

to

each

of t

hese

sco

ring

leve

ls is

pro

vide

d, a

nd in

all

case

s, th

ere

is a

n in

dica

tion

of w

here

the

info

rmat

ion

requ

ired

to

dete

rmin

e a

scor

e m

ight

be

foun

d. I

f the

re a

re lo

cal d

ata

sour

ces

such

as

an a

nnua

l sur

vey

of re

side

nts

that

ask

ed a

re

leva

nt q

uest

ion

or a

rece

nt p

ost-

emer

genc

y cr

itiqu

e th

at

addr

esse

d an

item

on

this

Sco

reca

rd, t

hen

use

them

. The

gl

ossa

ry a

ttac

hed

(App

endi

x 1)

incl

udes

link

s to

iden

tified

da

ta s

ourc

es.

Staff

from

the

Torr

ens

Resi

lienc

e In

stitu

te w

ho d

evel

oped

th

is S

core

card

are

ava

ilabl

e to

ans

wer

que

stio

ns a

s a

com

mun

ity p

roce

eds

to u

se th

e Sc

orec

ard.

Con

tact

the

TRI b

y em

ail (

info

rmat

ion@

torr

ensr

esili

ence

.org

) or p

hone

(0

8 82

2154

40).

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 5

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM


6M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Sele

ctin

g Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

The

Scor

ecar

d is

NO

T a

docu

men

t for

a s

ingl

e in

divi

dual

, or

a s

ingl

e go

vern

men

t age

ncy,

or a

gro

up o

f exp

erts

in

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss a

nd m

anag

emen

t to

com

plet

e;

it re

quire

s di

scus

sion

with

a la

rger

, mor

e di

vers

e gr

oup.

Co

mpl

etin

g th

e Co

mm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce S

core

card

is

bes

t don

e by

a S

core

card

Wor

king

Gro

up o

f 10

to 1

5 in

divi

dual

s, in

clud

ing

som

e lo

cal g

over

nmen

t offi

cial

s an

d a

num

ber o

f peo

ple

reco

gnis

ed a

s le

ader

s by

gro

ups

with

in th

e co

mm

unity

. It i

s pa

rtic

ular

ly im

port

ant t

hat

the

Scor

ecar

d W

orki

ng G

roup

repr

esen

t the

who

le

com

mun

ity, c

onsi

derin

g ge

ogra

phy,

age

, eco

nom

ics,

soci

al

and

ethn

ic g

roup

s, le

ngth

of t

ime

in th

e co

mm

unity

and

si

mila

r fac

tors

. Th

ey s

houl

d no

t be

indi

vidu

als

who

hol

d id

entic

al v

iew

s ab

out t

he c

omm

unity

; hav

ing

dive

rgen

t pe

rspe

ctiv

es e

ngag

ed in

the

proc

ess

will

str

engt

hen

the

outc

omes

.

A s

ampl

e le

tter

of i

nvita

tion

to th

e W

orki

ng G

roup

is

incl

uded

in A

ppen

dix

2 an

d in

dica

tes

the

expe

ctat

ion

that

it

is a

com

mitm

ent t

o 3

mee

tings

ove

r 4-6

wee

ks.

Get

ting

the

Pro

cess

Sta

rted

The

deci

sion

to c

ompl

ete

the

Scor

ecar

d is

usu

ally

mad

e at

the

loca

l gov

ernm

ent l

evel

, aft

er c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith k

ey

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs w

ho m

ay p

artic

ipat

e in

the

proc

ess,

or b

e ke

y so

urce

s of

info

rmat

ion.

It i

s N

OT

a do

cum

ent

to b

e as

sign

ed to

a s

ingl

e in

divi

dual

or g

over

nmen

t de

part

men

t to

com

plet

e. T

he g

eogr

aphi

c ar

ea to

be

incl

uded

sho

uld

be c

lear

ly d

efine

d at

the

outs

et, t

o fa

cilit

ate

use

of c

ensu

s an

d ot

her d

ata

sour

ces,

and

iden

tify

the

Wor

king

Gro

up. I

t may

be

help

ful t

o m

ark

on a

map

an

d di

spla

y bo

th th

e co

mm

unity

for w

hich

the

Scor

ecar

d is

bei

ng c

ompl

eted

(the

tow

n bo

unda

ries)

and

the

larg

er

regi

on o

r cou

ncil

to w

hich

this

tow

n re

late

s. F

or a

sm

all

to m

ediu

m to

wn,

a W

orki

ng G

roup

of a

doz

en is

suffi

cien

t; if

the

deci

sion

is to

look

at a

regi

on o

r dis

tric

t, th

e W

orki

ng

Gro

up m

ay n

eed

to b

e ex

pand

ed to

20

or s

o to

ass

ure

a ra

nge

of p

ersp

ectiv

es a

nd e

xper

ienc

es a

re re

pres

ente

d. A

t th

e re

gion

al o

r dis

tric

t lev

el, i

t may

be

best

to e

ncou

rage

all

tow

ns w

ithin

the

regi

on to

com

plet

e th

eir o

wn

Scor

ecar

ds

befo

re a

ssem

blin

g a

grou

p to

look

at t

he a

rea

as a

who

le.

The

Cha

ir of

the

Wor

king

Gro

up w

ill p

roba

bly

be id

entifi

ed

prio

r to

the

first

mee

ting,

but

may

be

sele

cted

by

the

mem

bers

at t

heir

first

mee

ting.

The

Cha

ir sh

ould

be

som

eone

who

is a

ble

to e

ncou

rage

gro

up d

iscu

ssio

n,

nego

tiate

agr

eem

ent a

mon

g th

ose

with

div

erge

nt

view

poin

ts, a

nd k

eep

the

grou

p on

trac

k w

ithin

the

expe

cted

tim

elin

e. T

he C

hair’

s pr

iorit

y sh

ould

be

the

proc

ess

of th

e gr

oup

rath

er th

an a

ny o

ne p

artic

ular

vi

ewpo

int a

bout

resi

lienc

e or

dis

aste

rs.

The

Cha

ir sh

ould

be

resp

onsi

ble

for a

ssur

ing

that

the

Mas

ter C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Sco

reca

rd is

com

plet

ed a

nd

avai

labl

e fo

r use

in p

lann

ing

any

follo

w-u

p ac

tiviti

es.

A

mem

ber o

f the

Wor

king

Gro

up m

ay b

e as

ked

to a

ssis

t in

prep

arin

g th

e fin

al c

opy.

A s

ampl

e le

tter

of i

nvita

tion

to s

erve

as

Cha

ir of

the

Wor

king

Gro

up is

incl

uded

in A

ppen

dix

3.

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 6

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM

7M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Sche

dulin

g

Whe

n or

gani

sing

the

Com

mun

ity D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

Sc

orec

ard

Wor

king

Gro

up, s

ome

key

sche

dulin

g ite

ms

to

thin

k ab

out a

re:

• In

itial

invi

tatio

n to

Sco

reca

rd W

orki

ng G

roup

Mem

bers

• Se

lect

ion

of S

core

card

Wor

king

Gro

up C

hair

• Fi

rst M

eetin

g: In

itial

orie

ntat

ion

mee

ting

(app

roxi

mat

ely

2 ho

urs)

for S

core

card

Wor

king

Gro

up

(app

roxi

mat

ely

2 w

eeks

aft

er le

tter

s ar

e is

sued

). Fa

mili

aris

e th

e gr

oup

with

geo

grap

hic

com

mun

ity

unde

r con

side

ratio

n, th

e de

finiti

on o

f com

mun

ity

disa

ster

resi

lienc

e an

d go

thro

ugh

the

Scor

ecar

d to

as

sign

indi

vidu

als

to d

ata

gath

erin

g ta

sks

(see

nex

t se

ctio

n).

• Se

cond

Mee

ting:

Sco

ring

mee

ting,

(app

roxi

mat

ely

2 ho

urs)

dur

ing

whi

ch g

athe

red

info

rmat

ion

is

pres

ente

d, a

nd th

e gr

oup

mak

es in

itial

judg

emen

ts

abou

t sco

ring

indi

vidu

al it

ems

(app

roxi

mat

ely

2 w

eeks

af

ter o

rient

atio

n m

eetin

g)

• Th

ird M

eetin

g: F

inal

revi

ew m

eetin

g (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 1

hour

) dur

ing

whi

ch W

orki

ng G

roup

mem

bers

can

sha

re

refle

ctio

ns o

n th

eir d

raft

sco

res,

cons

ider

any

add

ition

al

info

rmat

ion

gath

ered

from

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs

or o

ther

reso

urce

s in

the

mea

nwhi

le a

nd m

ake

final

sc

orin

g de

cisi

ons.

(App

roxi

mat

ely

2 w

eeks

aft

er th

e fir

st

scor

ing

mee

ting)

. A

t thi

s m

eetin

g in

itial

act

ion

plan

s to

str

engt

hen

resi

lienc

e ar

e al

so id

entifi

ed.

Sett

ing

up th

e m

eeti

ngs

The

Wor

king

Gro

up s

houl

d be

sch

edul

ed to

mee

t in

a co

nven

ient

loca

tion

that

has

com

fort

able

sea

ting

in a

ro

und

tabl

e ar

rang

emen

t, w

ith w

ater

and

pos

sibl

y co

ffee/

tea

avai

labl

e. L

ate

afte

rnoo

n or

ear

ly e

veni

ng ti

mes

may

be

bes

t to

acco

mm

odat

e th

e de

sire

d ra

nge

of m

embe

rs.

The

Wor

king

Cop

y of

the

Scor

ecar

d sh

ould

be

avai

labl

e fo

r ev

ery

mem

ber o

f the

gro

up, a

nd c

opie

s of

the

glos

sary

and

an

y ot

her r

esou

rce

mat

eria

l you

hav

e id

entifi

ed in

adv

ance

(s

uch

as a

rece

nt c

omm

unity

pla

nnin

g do

cum

ent o

r co

mm

unity

em

erge

ncy

plan

) sho

uld

be in

the

room

.

Scor

ing

For e

ach

ques

tion

on th

e Sc

orec

ard,

the

Scor

ecar

d W

orki

ng G

roup

mus

t agr

ee o

n a

scor

e, ra

ngin

g fro

m 1

(q

uite

un-

resi

lient

, or i

n th

e re

d zo

ne) t

o 5

(ver

y re

silie

nt,

the

gree

n zo

ne).

Whe

re th

e ite

m d

epen

ds o

n re

port

ed

stat

istic

al in

form

atio

n su

ch a

s th

e ce

nsus

, it i

s a

mat

ter o

f id

entif

ying

the

mos

t cur

rent

dat

a an

d ci

rclin

g th

e sc

ore

that

bes

t rep

rese

nts

the

loca

l situ

atio

n. F

or q

uite

a fe

w

of th

e ite

ms,

how

ever

, a c

onse

nsus

judg

emen

t is

calle

d fo

r. T

he W

orki

ng G

roup

Cha

ir m

ust e

nsur

e th

at a

ltern

ate

pers

pect

ives

on

the

scor

e ar

e ex

pres

sed,

and

dis

cuss

ion

allo

wed

bef

ore

dete

rmin

ing

the

scor

e. A

fter

com

plet

ing

a fir

st d

raft

of t

he S

core

card

the

Wor

king

Gro

up m

embe

rs

shou

ld th

ink

over

and

eve

n di

scus

s w

ith fr

iend

s an

d co

lleag

ues

thei

r vie

ws

befo

re th

e fin

al s

core

is a

ssig

ned.

Th

is s

tren

gthe

ns th

e pr

oces

s, an

d in

crea

ses

the

likel

ihoo

d th

at th

e sc

ore

final

ly s

elec

ted

repr

esen

ts th

e po

tent

ial

resi

lienc

e of

the

com

mun

ity.

If th

ere

is s

ubst

antia

l dis

agre

emen

t on

the

corr

ect s

core

, an

d th

ere

wel

l may

be,

set

ting

the

scor

e at

a lo

wer

leve

l (t

he le

ss re

silie

nt le

vel)

rath

er th

an a

hig

her o

ne w

ill b

e a

mor

e eff

ectiv

e w

ay o

f con

tinui

ng to

eng

age

mem

bers

of

the

com

mun

ity in

str

engt

heni

ng re

silie

nce.

Rem

embe

r, th

e Sc

orec

ard

resu

lts a

re n

ot fo

r any

one

outs

ide

of th

e co

mm

unity

: the

y ar

e yo

urs

to u

se a

s a

qual

ity im

prov

emen

t and

com

mun

icat

ion

tool

.

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 7

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM


8M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 8

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM

9M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Wor

king

Cop

y (f

or d

istr

ibut

ion

to e

ach

mem

ber

of t

he W

orki

ng G

roup

)

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd fo

r ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 9

12/1

2/20

12

4:07

:00

PM


10M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

The

Com

mun

ity D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd is

one

to

ol a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e A

ustr

alia

n N

atio

nal S

trat

egy

for

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce, a

s co

mm

uniti

es a

cros

s A

ustr

alia

are

be

ing

enco

urag

ed to

take

ste

ps to

str

engt

hen

com

mun

ity

resi

lienc

e in

the

face

of d

isas

ter.

Defi

nitio

n of

com

mun

ity d

isas

ter r

esili

ence

: Bey

ond

the

resi

lienc

e of

indi

vidu

als

or in

divi

dual

org

anis

atio

ns, y

our

com

mun

ity w

ill p

rove

resi

lient

in th

e ev

ent o

f a s

ever

e em

erge

ncy

or d

isas

ter w

hen

mem

bers

of t

he p

opul

atio

n ar

e co

nnec

ted

to o

ne a

noth

er a

nd w

ork

toge

ther

, so

that

th

ey a

re a

ble

to:

• fu

nctio

n an

d su

stai

n cr

itica

l sys

tem

s, ev

en u

nder

str

ess;

• ad

apt t

o ch

ange

s in

the

phys

ical

, soc

ial o

r eco

nom

ic

envi

ronm

ent;

• be

sel

f-rel

iant

if e

xter

nal r

esou

rces

are

lim

ited

or c

ut o

ff;

and

• le

arn

from

exp

erie

nce

to im

prov

e ov

er ti

me.

This

is y

our w

orki

ng c

opy

of th

e Sc

orec

ard,

and

you

sho

uld

use

it to

thin

k th

roug

h ho

w y

ou w

ould

sco

re e

ach

item

so

that

you

are

read

y to

con

trib

ute

to th

e W

orki

ng G

roup

pr

oces

s th

at w

ill a

rriv

e at

a fi

nal s

core

for y

our c

omm

unity

. M

ake

note

s, co

nsul

t with

nei

ghbo

rs, f

riend

s or

co-

wor

kers

, an

d ex

plor

e th

e su

gges

ted

info

rmat

ion

sour

ces.

It w

ill p

roba

bly

take

2-3

mee

tings

to th

ink

thro

ugh

the

item

s, ar

rive

at a

gree

men

t on

the

scor

ing,

and

iden

tify

thos

e ar

eas

mos

t in

need

of o

ngoi

ng a

tten

tion.

Eac

h co

mpo

nent

of r

esili

ence

is s

core

d fro

m 1

to 5

, with

5

bein

g th

e hi

ghes

t lev

el o

f res

ilien

ce.

In m

ost c

ases

, we

have

pro

vide

d a

defin

ition

or a

n ex

ampl

e of

wha

t mig

ht

lead

to e

ach

of th

ese

scor

ing

leve

ls, a

nd in

all

case

s, w

e ha

ve p

rovi

ded

som

e in

form

atio

n on

whe

re y

ou m

ight

lo

ok fo

r the

dat

a or

info

rmat

ion

requ

ired

to c

ompl

ete

the

Scor

ecar

d.

Be a

n ac

tive

part

icip

ant i

n th

e pr

oces

s. S

ince

the

Scor

ecar

d is

onl

y on

e st

ep in

hel

ping

incr

ease

com

mun

ity

disa

ster

resi

lienc

e, u

se it

to p

oint

tow

ard

need

ed a

ctio

n.

With

that

in m

ind,

it is

pro

babl

y he

lpfu

l to

err o

n th

e si

de o

f a

low

er th

an h

ighe

r sco

re w

hen

it is

diffi

cult

to d

ecid

e on

an

y on

e ite

m.

Wor

king

Cop

y fo

r ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

Tim

e

Value

SHO

CK o

r STR

ESS

Colla

pse

Resi

lienc

e

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

012

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM

11M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e1.

1

Wha

t pro

port

ion

of y

our p

opul

atio

n is

eng

aged

with

org

anis

atio

ns (e

.g.,

club

s, se

rvic

e gr

oups

, spo

rts

team

s, ch

urch

es, l

ibra

ry)?

1 <

20%

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

Cens

us

1.2

D

o m

embe

rs o

f the

com

mun

ity h

ave

acce

ss to

a ra

nge

of c

omm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

s th

at a

llow

info

rmat

ion

to fl

ow

durin

g an

em

erge

ncy?

1 D

on’t

know

2 H

as li

mite

d ac

cess

to

a ra

nge

of

com

mun

icat

ion

3 H

as g

ood

acce

ss

to a

rang

e of

co

mm

unic

atio

n bu

t dam

age

resi

stan

ce n

ot

know

n

4 H

as v

ery

good

acc

ess

to a

rang

e of

co

mm

unic

atio

n an

d da

mag

e re

sist

ance

is

mod

erat

e

5 H

as w

ide

rang

e of

acc

ess

to d

amag

e-re

sist

ant

com

mun

icat

ion

Self

-Ass

essm

ent

1.3

W

hat i

s th

e le

vel o

f com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

loca

l gov

erni

ng b

ody

and

popu

latio

n?

1 Pa

ssiv

e (g

over

nmen

t pa

rtic

ipat

ion

only

)

2 Co

nsul

tatio

n3

Enga

gem

ent

4 Co

llabo

ratio

n5

Act

ive

part

icip

atio

n (c

omm

unity

in

form

s go

vern

men

t on

wha

t is

need

ed)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Ass

ocia

tion

for P

ublic

Par

tici

pati

on

(IA

P2) S

pect

rum

http

://w

ww

.iap2

.org

/ass

ocia

tions

/474

8/fil

es/IA

P2%

20Sp

ectr

um_v

ertic

al.p

df

1.4

W

hat i

s th

e re

latio

nshi

p of

you

r co

mm

unity

with

the

larg

er re

gion

?1

No

netw

orks

w

ith o

ther

to

wns

/ re

gion

2 In

form

al

netw

orks

with

ot

her t

owns

/ re

gion

3 So

me

repr

esen

tatio

n at

regi

onal

m

eetin

gs

4 M

ultip

le

repr

esen

tatio

n at

regi

onal

m

eetin

gs

5 Re

gula

r pla

nnin

g an

d ac

tiviti

es

with

oth

er

tow

ns/

regi

on

Self

-Ass

essm

ent

1.5

W

hat i

s th

e de

gree

of c

onne

cted

ness

ac

ross

com

mun

ity g

roup

s? (e

.g.

ethn

iciti

es/s

ub-c

ultu

res/

age

grou

ps/

new

resi

dent

s no

t in

your

com

mun

ity

whe

n la

st d

isas

ter h

appe

ned)

1 Li

ttle

/no

atte

ntio

n to

su

bgro

ups

in

com

mun

ity

2 A

dver

tisin

g of

cu

ltura

l/cro

ss-

cultu

ral e

vent

s

3 Co

mpr

ehen

sive

in

vent

ory

of

cultu

ral i

dent

ity

grou

ps

4 Co

mm

unity

cr

oss-

cultu

ral

coun

cil

with

wid

e m

embe

rshi

p

5 Su

ppor

t for

an

d ac

tive

invo

lvem

ent i

n cu

ltura

l/cro

ss-

cultu

ral e

vent

s

(in a

dditi

on to

pr

evio

us)

Self

-Ass

essm

ent t

ied

to d

emog

raph

ic p

rofi

le; l

ocal

su

rvey

to a

sses

s

1. H

ow c

onne

cted

are

the

mem

ber

s of

you

r co

mm

unit

y?

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

112

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM


12M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e2.

1

Wha

t are

the

know

n ris

ks o

f all

iden

tified

haz

ards

in y

our

com

mun

ity?

1 N

o lo

cal f

ocus

or

map

ping

on

risk

2 Lo

cal f

ocus

on

sing

le ri

sk (e

.g.,

fire)

but

no

map

ping

3 M

appi

ng o

f si

ngle

loca

l ris

k

4 W

idel

y av

aila

ble

map

ping

of

mul

tiple

po

tent

ial s

ourc

es

of ri

sk

5 W

idel

y av

aila

ble

map

ping

in

clud

es lo

w

prob

abili

ty/h

igh

impa

ct e

vent

s

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es re

sour

ces

and

com

mun

ity

info

rmat

ion

reso

urce

s

2.2

W

hat a

re th

e tr

ends

in re

lativ

e si

ze o

f the

per

man

ent

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

and

the

daily

pop

ulat

ion?

1

Resi

dent

po

pula

tion

is

<20

% o

f the

da

ytim

e (w

orke

r) po

pula

tion

2 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

21

-40%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

3 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

41

-60%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

4 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

61

-80%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

5 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n fo

rms

>80

% o

f the

da

ytim

e (w

orke

r) po

pula

tion

Cens

us o

r ABS

2.3

W

hat i

s th

e ra

te o

f the

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

chan

ge in

the

last

5 y

ears

?1

>30

%2

20-2

9%3

13-1

9%4

6-12

%5 <5%

Cens

us

2.4

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

the

popu

latio

n ha

s th

e ca

paci

ty

to in

depe

nden

tly m

ove

to s

afet

y? (

e.g.

, non

-in

stitu

tiona

lised

, mob

ile w

ith o

wn

vehi

cle,

adu

lt)

1 <

20%

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

ABS

, loc

al p

lann

ing

docu

men

ts

2.5

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

the

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

pref

ers

com

mun

icat

ion

in a

lang

uage

oth

er th

an E

nglis

h?1

>35

%2

25-3

4%3

15-2

4%4

5-14

%5 <5%

Cens

us

2.6

H

as th

e tr

ansi

ent p

opul

atio

n (e

.g.,

tour

ists

, tra

nsie

nt

wor

kers

) bee

n in

clud

ed in

pla

nnin

g fo

r res

pons

e an

d re

cove

ry?

1 N

o tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

incl

uded

2 Tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

iden

tified

3 <

50%

of p

lans

in

clud

e tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

4 51

-75%

of

orga

nisa

tion

plan

s in

clud

e

5 A

ll pl

ans

incl

ude

tran

sien

t po

pula

tions

Loca

l pla

nnin

g do

cum

ents

or l

ocal

su

rvey

2.7

W

hat i

s th

e ris

k th

at y

our c

omm

unity

cou

ld b

e is

olat

ed

durin

g an

em

erge

ncy

even

t?1

Not

con

side

red

in p

lann

ing

2 M

ap o

f all

acce

ss

rout

es/m

eans

av

aila

ble

to th

e po

pula

tion

3 M

ap d

istr

ibut

ed

with

requ

est t

o ha

ve p

erso

nal

plan

if a

cces

s is

se

vere

ly li

mite

d

4 Pe

rcen

tage

of

pop

ulat

ion

need

ing

tran

spor

t hel

p id

entifi

ed

5 Tr

ansp

ort p

lan

incl

udes

tho

se

with

out p

erso

nal

tran

spor

t &

supp

ort f

or

inco

min

g su

pplie

s

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

info

rmat

ion

acce

ssib

le w

ithi

n co

mm

unit

y

2. W

hat

is t

he le

vel o

f ris

k an

d v

ulne

rab

ility

in y

our

com

mun

ity?

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

212

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM

13M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e3.

1

To w

hat e

xten

t and

leve

l are

hou

seho

lds

with

in th

e co

mm

unity

eng

aged

in p

lann

ing

for d

isas

ter r

espo

nse

and

reco

very

?

1 N

o ex

pect

atio

n th

at h

ouse

hold

s w

ill p

lan

for

emer

genc

y

2 H

ouse

hold

s ge

t inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng

3 Co

mm

unity

ed

ucat

ion

sess

ions

are

co

nduc

ted

to

assi

st h

ouse

hold

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

4 Co

llabo

ratio

n oc

curs

with

ho

useh

olds

in

plan

ning

the

com

mun

ity’s

disa

ster

resp

onse

5 A

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

by h

ouse

hold

s in

pla

nnin

g co

mm

unity

’s di

sast

er re

spon

se

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

revi

ew

of p

lans

/loc

al d

ocum

ents

; may

be

augm

ente

d by

loca

l sur

vey

3.2

A

re th

ere

plan

ned

activ

ities

to re

ach

the

entir

e co

mm

unity

abo

ut a

ll-ha

zard

s re

silie

nce?

1

No

plan

ned

activ

ities

2 G

roup

s en

cour

aged

to

do a

ctiv

ities

3 Tr

ansl

ated

m

ater

ials

/di

strib

utio

n to

id

entifi

ed g

roup

s at

risk

4 O

ccas

iona

l ac

tiviti

es fo

r se

lect

ed g

roup

s

5 A

t lea

st a

nnua

l cr

oss-

cultu

ral

com

mun

ity-

wid

e al

l haz

ards

ac

tivity

eng

agin

g m

ultip

le

orga

nisa

tions

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

loca

l pl

anni

ng d

ocum

ents

3.3

D

oes

the

com

mun

ity a

ctua

lly m

eet r

equi

rem

ents

for

disa

ster

read

ines

s?1

Unk

now

n le

vel

of a

war

enes

s by

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

2 Re

adin

ess

requ

irem

ents

sp

ecifi

ed b

ut n

ot

wid

ely

know

n

3 Re

side

nts

rout

inel

y in

form

ed a

bout

re

adin

ess

requ

irem

ents

4 Re

quire

men

ts

impl

emen

ted

whe

n at

tent

ion

is c

alle

d

5 Co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs a

ct o

n re

quire

men

ts

as c

omm

itmen

t to

resi

lienc

e en

forc

ed

Self

-Ass

essm

ent,

use

of l

ocal

do

cum

enta

tion

, loc

al s

urve

y

3.4

D

o po

st-d

isas

ter e

vent

ass

essm

ents

cha

nge

expe

ctat

ions

or

pla

ns?

1 Em

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

/Fire

/Po

lice

only

2 Po

st-e

vent

as

sess

men

t sh

ared

at p

ublic

m

eetin

g

3 Po

st-e

vent

qu

estio

ns

circ

ulat

ed to

al

l par

ts o

f co

mm

unity

4 Re

spon

ses

to q

uest

ions

co

llect

ed a

nd

repo

rted

5 Po

st-e

vent

ac

tion

plan

ba

sed

on

resp

onse

s in

clud

es a

ll co

mm

unity

el

emen

ts

(gov

ernm

ent/

busi

ness

es/

NG

O’s)

Revi

ew o

f loc

al p

ost-

even

t do

cum

ents

3. W

hat

pro

ced

ures

sup

por

t co

mm

unit

y d

isas

ter

pla

nnin

g, r

esp

onse

and

re

cove

ry?

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

312

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM


14M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e4.

1

How

com

preh

ensi

ve is

the

loca

l in

frast

ruct

ure

emer

genc

y pr

otec

tion

plan

? (e

.g.,

wat

er s

uppl

y, s

ewer

age,

po

wer

sys

tem

)

1 N

o pl

an2

Infra

stru

ctur

es

iden

tified

but

no

prot

ectio

n p

lan

3 M

ost i

ndiv

idua

l in

frast

ruct

ure

com

pone

nts

have

pl

ans

for s

ome

emer

genc

ies

4 A

ll In

divi

dual

in

frast

ruct

ure

com

pone

nts

have

all

haza

rd p

lans

5 In

frast

ruct

ure

syst

em

is i

nteg

rate

d in

to a

n al

l ha

zard

s pr

otec

tion

plan

Loca

l and

sta

te g

over

nmen

t em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent

plan

ning

doc

umen

ts

4.2

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

pop

ulat

ion

with

sk

ills

usef

ul in

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

/re

cove

ry (e

.g.,

first

aid

, saf

e fo

od

hand

ling)

can

be

mob

ilise

d if

need

ed?

1 <

20%

(mos

tly re

late

d to

occ

upat

ion)

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

repr

esen

ting

all

subg

roup

s

Self

-Ass

essm

ent,

repo

rts

from

lo

cal o

rgan

isat

ions

, loc

al

surv

ey

4.3

To

wha

t ext

ent a

re a

ll ed

ucat

iona

l in

stitu

tions

(pub

lic/p

rivat

e sc

hool

s, al

l lev

els

incl

udin

g ea

rly c

hild

car

e)

enga

ged

in e

mer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

educ

atio

n?

1 N

o ro

le k

now

n or

id

entifi

ed

2 M

ost s

choo

ls

prov

ide

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

info

rmat

ion

to

teac

hers

and

st

uden

ts

3 M

ost s

choo

ls

prov

ide

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

educ

atio

n to

te

ache

rs, s

tude

nts

and

pare

nts

4 Em

erge

ncy

prep

ared

ness

ed

ucat

ion

with

ac

tiviti

es o

ccur

s in

m

ost s

choo

ls w

ith

stud

ents

, tea

cher

s an

d pa

rent

s

5 M

ost s

choo

ls a

ctiv

ely

pa

rtic

ipat

e in

em

erge

ncy

prep

ared

ness

edu

catio

n at

co

mm

unity

leve

l

Doc

umen

tati

on fr

om s

choo

ls

abou

t pla

ns/a

ctiv

itie

s

4.4

H

ow a

re a

vaila

ble

med

ical

and

pub

lic

heal

th s

ervi

ces

incl

uded

in e

mer

genc

y pl

anni

ng?

1 N

o id

ea o

r the

re a

re

no s

ervi

ces

2 Ex

pect

to re

ly o

n ex

istin

g lo

cal s

ervi

ces

3 S

ome

loca

l se

rvic

es a

re a

ctiv

ely

enga

ged

in re

gion

al

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng

4 A

ll lo

cal s

ervi

ces

activ

ely

enga

ged

in

regi

onal

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

5 Pu

blic

hea

lth/m

edic

al

syst

emic

pla

n to

sup

port

re

spon

se a

nd re

cove

ry in

pl

ace

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

conv

ersa

tion

wit

h he

alth

re

sour

ces

4.5

A

re re

adily

acc

essi

ble

loca

tions

ava

ilabl

e as

eva

cuat

ion

or re

cove

ry c

entr

es (e

.g.,

scho

ol h

alls

, com

mun

ity o

r sho

ppin

g ce

ntre

s, po

st o

ffice

) and

incl

uded

in

resi

lienc

e st

rate

gy?

1 N

o in

vent

ory

of

plac

es

2 So

me

inve

ntor

y of

pl

aces

, but

loca

tions

no

t wel

l-pub

licis

ed

3 In

vent

ory

of a

ll pl

aces

, but

not

as

sess

ed fo

r su

itabi

lity

as a

n ev

acua

tion

cent

re

4 Si

tes

stoc

ked

and

know

n bu

t no

t suffi

cien

t for

es

timat

ed n

eed

5 W

ell-k

now

n, s

uffici

ent

site

s w

ith w

ater

/ fo

od/

info

rmat

ion

reso

urce

s w

idel

y ad

vert

ised

and

in

clud

ed in

all

plan

ning

Plan

ning

doc

umen

ts a

nd

publ

ic in

form

atio

n re

cord

s

4.6

W

hat i

s th

e le

vel o

f foo

d/w

ater

/fue

l re

adily

ava

ilabi

lity

in th

e co

mm

unity

?1

No

idea

2 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s de

pend

ent o

n da

ily

exte

rnal

food

/ w

ater

/ fu

el s

uppl

y

3 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve u

p to

2 d

ays

supp

ly o

f foo

d/

wat

er/

fuel

4 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve u

p to

4 d

ays

supp

ly o

f foo

d/

wat

er/

fuel

5 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve

over

5 d

ays

supp

ly o

f foo

d/

wat

er/

fuel

Loca

l pla

ns p

lus

loca

l sur

vey

4. W

hat

emer

genc

y p

lann

ing,

res

pon

se a

nd r

ecov

ery

reso

urce

s ar

e av

aila

ble

in

your

com

mun

ity?

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

412

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM

15M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Mas

ter

Copy

(t

o b

e co

mp

lete

d a

t th

e co

nclu

sion

of t

he p

roce

ss, o

n b

ehal

f of t

he g

roup

)

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd fo

r ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

512

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM


16M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

For m

any

item

s a

cons

ensu

s ju

dgem

ent m

ust b

e m

ade

by

the

Wor

king

Gro

up.

The

Wor

king

Gro

up C

hair

mus

t ens

ure

that

alte

rnat

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

n th

e sc

ore

are

expr

esse

d,

and

disc

ussi

on a

llow

ed b

efor

e de

term

inin

g th

e sc

ore.

If

ther

e is

sub

stan

tial d

isag

reem

ent o

n th

e co

rrec

t sco

re, a

nd

ther

e w

ell m

ay b

e, s

ettin

g th

e sc

ore

at a

low

er le

vel (

the

less

resi

lient

leve

l) ra

ther

than

a h

ighe

r one

will

be

a m

ore

effec

tive

way

of c

ontin

uing

to e

ngag

e m

embe

rs o

f the

co

mm

unity

in s

tren

gthe

ning

resi

lienc

e. R

emem

ber,

this

is

your

tool

to u

se to

hel

p yo

ur c

omm

unity

.

This

Sco

reca

rd is

one

tool

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Str

ateg

y fo

r Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce, a

s co

mm

uniti

es

acro

ss A

ustr

alia

are

bei

ng e

ncou

rage

d to

take

ste

ps to

st

reng

then

com

mun

ity re

silie

nce

in th

e fa

ce o

f dis

aste

r. Ea

ch c

ompo

nent

of r

esili

ence

is s

core

d fro

m 1

to 5

, with

5

bein

g th

e hi

ghes

t lev

el o

f res

ilien

ce.

The

tota

l sco

re a

dded

up

on

the

final

pag

e w

ill id

entif

y w

heth

er y

our c

omm

unity

is

in th

e gr

een

zone

(lik

ely

to b

ounc

e ba

ck),

the

red

zone

(v

ery

unlik

ely

to re

cove

r, or

reco

ver q

uick

ly),

or s

omew

here

in

bet

wee

n, a

cau

tious

am

ber z

one.

Dat

e Co

mp

lete

d ..

......

......

......

... C

onta

ct P

erso

n ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

Att

ach

a m

ap o

f the

com

mun

ity

and

the

surr

ound

ing

regi

on h

ere

as a

rem

inde

r

Tim

e

Value

SHO

CK o

r STR

ESS

Colla

pse

Resi

lienc

e

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

612

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

1 PM

17M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e1.

1

Wha

t pro

port

ion

of y

our p

opul

atio

n is

eng

aged

with

org

anis

atio

ns (e

.g.,

club

s, se

rvic

e gr

oups

, spo

rts

team

s, ch

urch

es, l

ibra

ry)?

1 <

20%

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

Cens

us

1.2

D

o m

embe

rs o

f the

com

mun

ity h

ave

acce

ss to

a ra

nge

of c

omm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

s th

at a

llow

info

rmat

ion

to fl

ow

durin

g an

em

erge

ncy?

1 D

on’t

know

2 H

as li

mite

d ac

cess

to

a ra

nge

of

com

mun

icat

ion

3 H

as g

ood

acce

ss

to a

rang

e of

co

mm

unic

atio

n bu

t dam

age

resi

stan

ce n

ot

know

n

4 H

as v

ery

good

acc

ess

to a

rang

e of

co

mm

unic

atio

n an

d da

mag

e re

sist

ance

is

mod

erat

e

5 H

as w

ide

rang

e of

acc

ess

to d

amag

e-re

sist

ant

com

mun

icat

ion

Self

-Ass

essm

ent

1.3

W

hat i

s th

e le

vel o

f com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

loca

l gov

erni

ng b

ody

and

popu

latio

n?

1 Pa

ssiv

e (g

over

nmen

t pa

rtic

ipat

ion

only

)

2 Co

nsul

tatio

n3

Enga

gem

ent

4 Co

llabo

ratio

n5

Act

ive

part

icip

atio

n (c

omm

unity

in

form

s go

vern

men

t on

wha

t is

need

ed)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Ass

ocia

tion

for P

ublic

Par

tici

pati

on

(IA

P2) S

pect

rum

http

://w

ww

.iap2

.org

/ass

ocia

tions

/474

8/fil

es/IA

P2%

20Sp

ectr

um_v

ertic

al.p

df

1.4

W

hat i

s th

e re

latio

nshi

p of

you

r co

mm

unity

with

the

larg

er re

gion

?1

No

netw

orks

w

ith o

ther

to

wns

/ re

gion

2 In

form

al

netw

orks

with

ot

her t

owns

/ re

gion

3 So

me

repr

esen

tatio

n at

regi

onal

m

eetin

gs

4 M

ultip

le

repr

esen

tatio

n at

regi

onal

m

eetin

gs

5 Re

gula

r pla

nnin

g an

d ac

tiviti

es

with

oth

er

tow

ns/

regi

on

Self

-Ass

essm

ent

1.5

W

hat i

s th

e de

gree

of c

onne

cted

ness

ac

ross

com

mun

ity g

roup

s? (e

.g.

ethn

iciti

es/s

ub-c

ultu

res/

age

grou

ps/

new

resi

dent

s no

t in

your

com

mun

ity

whe

n la

st d

isas

ter h

appe

ned)

1 Li

ttle

/no

atte

ntio

n to

su

bgro

ups

in

com

mun

ity

2 A

dver

tisin

g of

cu

ltura

l/cro

ss-

cultu

ral e

vent

s

3 Co

mpr

ehen

sive

in

vent

ory

of

cultu

ral i

dent

ity

grou

ps

4 Co

mm

unity

cr

oss-

cultu

ral

coun

cil

with

wid

e m

embe

rshi

p

5 Su

ppor

t for

an

d ac

tive

invo

lvem

ent i

n cu

ltura

l/cro

ss-

cultu

ral e

vent

s

(in a

dditi

on to

pr

evio

us)

Self

-Ass

essm

ent t

ied

to d

emog

raph

ic p

rofi

le; l

ocal

su

rvey

to a

sses

s

Conn

ecte

dnes

s Sc

ore:

1. H

ow c

onne

cted

are

the

mem

ber

s of

you

r co

mm

unit

y?

25%

(5-1

0)26

-75%

(11-

29)

76-1

00%

(20-

25)

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

712

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


18M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e2.

1

Wha

t are

the

know

n ris

ks o

f all

iden

tified

haz

ards

in y

our

com

mun

ity?

1 N

o lo

cal f

ocus

or

map

ping

on

risk

2 Lo

cal f

ocus

on

sing

le ri

sk (e

.g.,

fire)

but

no

map

ping

3 M

appi

ng o

f si

ngle

loca

l ris

k

4 W

idel

y av

aila

ble

map

ping

of

mul

tiple

po

tent

ial s

ourc

es

of ri

sk

5 W

idel

y av

aila

ble

map

ping

in

clud

es lo

w

prob

abili

ty/h

igh

impa

ct e

vent

s

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es re

sour

ces

and

com

mun

ity

info

rmat

ion

reso

urce

s

2.2

W

hat a

re th

e tr

ends

in re

lativ

e si

ze o

f the

per

man

ent

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

and

the

daily

pop

ulat

ion?

1

Resi

dent

po

pula

tion

is

<20

% o

f the

da

ytim

e (w

orke

r) po

pula

tion

2 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

21

-40%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

3 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

41

-60%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

4 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n is

61

-80%

of t

he

dayt

ime

(wor

ker)

popu

latio

n

5 Re

side

nt

popu

latio

n fo

rms

>80

% o

f the

da

ytim

e (w

orke

r) po

pula

tion

Cens

us o

r ABS

2.3

W

hat i

s th

e ra

te o

f the

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

chan

ge in

the

last

5 y

ears

?1

>30

%2

20-2

9%3

13-1

9%4

6-12

%5 <5%

Cens

us

2.4

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

the

popu

latio

n ha

s th

e ca

paci

ty

to in

depe

nden

tly m

ove

to s

afet

y? (

e.g.

, non

-in

stitu

tiona

lised

, mob

ile w

ith o

wn

vehi

cle,

adu

lt)

1 <

20%

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

ABS

, loc

al p

lann

ing

docu

men

ts

2.5

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

the

resi

dent

pop

ulat

ion

pref

ers

com

mun

icat

ion

in a

lang

uage

oth

er th

an E

nglis

h?1

>35

%2

25-3

4%3

15-2

4%4

5-14

%5 <5%

Cens

us

2.6

H

as th

e tr

ansi

ent p

opul

atio

n (e

.g.,

tour

ists

, tra

nsie

nt

wor

kers

) bee

n in

clud

ed in

pla

nnin

g fo

r res

pons

e an

d re

cove

ry?

1 N

o tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

incl

uded

2 Tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

iden

tified

3 <

50%

of p

lans

in

clud

e tr

ansi

ent

popu

latio

ns

4 51

-75%

of

orga

nisa

tion

plan

s in

clud

e

5 A

ll pl

ans

incl

ude

tran

sien

t po

pula

tions

Loca

l pla

nnin

g do

cum

ents

or l

ocal

su

rvey

2.7

W

hat i

s th

e ris

k th

at y

our c

omm

unity

cou

ld b

e is

olat

ed

durin

g an

em

erge

ncy

even

t?1

Not

con

side

red

in p

lann

ing

2 M

ap o

f all

acce

ss

rout

es/m

eans

av

aila

ble

to th

e po

pula

tion

3 M

ap d

istr

ibut

ed

with

requ

est t

o ha

ve p

erso

nal

plan

if a

cces

s is

se

vere

ly li

mite

d

4 Pe

rcen

tage

of

pop

ulat

ion

need

ing

tran

spor

t hel

p id

entifi

ed

5 Tr

ansp

ort p

lan

incl

udes

tho

se

with

out p

erso

nal

tran

spor

t &

supp

ort f

or

inco

min

g su

pplie

s

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

info

rmat

ion

acce

ssib

le w

ithi

n co

mm

unit

y

Risk

/Vul

nera

bilit

y Sc

ore:

2. W

hat

is t

he le

vel o

f ris

k an

d v

ulne

rab

ility

in y

our

com

mun

ity?

25%

(7-1

3)26

-75%

(14-

28)

76-1

00%

(29-

35)

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

812

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM

19M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e3.

1

To w

hat e

xten

t and

leve

l are

hou

seho

lds

with

in th

e co

mm

unity

eng

aged

in p

lann

ing

for d

isas

ter r

espo

nse

and

reco

very

?

1 N

o ex

pect

atio

n th

at h

ouse

hold

s w

ill p

lan

for

emer

genc

y

2 H

ouse

hold

s ge

t inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng

3 Co

mm

unity

ed

ucat

ion

sess

ions

are

co

nduc

ted

to

assi

st h

ouse

hold

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

4 Co

llabo

ratio

n oc

curs

with

ho

useh

olds

in

plan

ning

the

com

mun

ity’s

disa

ster

resp

onse

5 A

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

by h

ouse

hold

s in

pla

nnin

g co

mm

unity

’s di

sast

er re

spon

se

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

revi

ew

of p

lans

/loc

al d

ocum

ents

; may

be

augm

ente

d by

loca

l sur

vey

3.2

A

re th

ere

plan

ned

activ

ities

to re

ach

the

entir

e co

mm

unity

abo

ut a

ll-ha

zard

s re

silie

nce?

1

No

plan

ned

activ

ities

2 G

roup

s en

cour

aged

to

do a

ctiv

ities

3 Tr

ansl

ated

m

ater

ials

/di

strib

utio

n to

id

entifi

ed g

roup

s at

risk

4 O

ccas

iona

l ac

tiviti

es fo

r se

lect

ed g

roup

s

5 A

t lea

st a

nnua

l cr

oss-

cultu

ral

com

mun

ity-

wid

e al

l haz

ards

ac

tivity

eng

agin

g m

ultip

le

orga

nisa

tions

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

loca

l pl

anni

ng d

ocum

ents

3.3

D

oes

the

com

mun

ity a

ctua

lly m

eet r

equi

rem

ents

for

disa

ster

read

ines

s?1

Unk

now

n le

vel

of a

war

enes

s by

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

2 Re

adin

ess

requ

irem

ents

sp

ecifi

ed b

ut n

ot

wid

ely

know

n

3 Re

side

nts

rout

inel

y in

form

ed a

bout

re

adin

ess

requ

irem

ents

4 Re

quire

men

ts

impl

emen

ted

whe

n at

tent

ion

is c

alle

d

5 Co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs a

ct o

n re

quire

men

ts

as c

omm

itmen

t to

resi

lienc

e en

forc

ed

Self

-Ass

essm

ent,

use

of l

ocal

do

cum

enta

tion

, loc

al s

urve

y

3.4

D

o po

st-d

isas

ter e

vent

ass

essm

ents

cha

nge

expe

ctat

ions

or

pla

ns?

1 Em

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

/Fire

/Po

lice

only

2 Po

st-e

vent

as

sess

men

t sh

ared

at p

ublic

m

eetin

g

3 Po

st-e

vent

qu

estio

ns

circ

ulat

ed to

al

l par

ts o

f co

mm

unity

4 Re

spon

ses

to q

uest

ions

co

llect

ed a

nd

repo

rted

5 Po

st-e

vent

ac

tion

plan

ba

sed

on

resp

onse

s in

clud

es a

ll co

mm

unity

el

emen

ts

(gov

ernm

ent/

busi

ness

es/

NG

O’s)

Revi

ew o

f loc

al p

ost-

even

t do

cum

ents

Proc

edur

es S

core

:

3. W

hat

pro

ced

ures

sup

por

t co

mm

unit

y d

isas

ter

pla

nnin

g, r

esp

onse

and

re

cove

ry?

25%

(4-8

)26

-75%

(9-1

6)76

-100

% (1

7-20

)

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 1

912

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


20M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Que

stio

nSc

ore

Info

rmat

ion

Res

ourc

e4.

1

How

com

preh

ensi

ve is

the

loca

l in

frast

ruct

ure

emer

genc

y pr

otec

tion

plan

? (e

.g.,

wat

er s

uppl

y, s

ewer

age,

po

wer

sys

tem

)

1 N

o pl

an2

Infra

stru

ctur

es

iden

tified

but

no

prot

ectio

n p

lan

3 M

ost i

ndiv

idua

l in

frast

ruct

ure

com

pone

nts

have

pla

ns

for s

ome

emer

genc

ies

4 A

ll In

divi

dual

in

frast

ruct

ure

com

pone

nts

have

all

haza

rd p

lans

5 In

frast

ruct

ure

syst

em

is i

nteg

rate

d in

to a

n al

l ha

zard

s pr

otec

tion

plan

Loca

l and

sta

te g

over

nmen

t em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent

plan

ning

doc

umen

ts

4.2

W

hat p

ropo

rtio

n of

pop

ulat

ion

with

sk

ills

usef

ul in

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

/re

cove

ry (e

.g.,

first

aid

, saf

e fo

od

hand

ling)

can

be

mob

ilise

d if

need

ed?

1 <

20%

(mos

tly

rela

ted

to

occu

patio

n)

2 21

-40%

3 41

-60%

4 61

-80%

5 >

81%

repr

esen

ting

all

subg

roup

s

Self

-Ass

essm

ent,

repo

rts

from

lo

cal o

rgan

isat

ions

, loc

al

surv

ey

4.3

To

wha

t ext

ent a

re a

ll ed

ucat

iona

l in

stitu

tions

(pub

lic/p

rivat

e sc

hool

s, al

l lev

els

incl

udin

g ea

rly c

hild

car

e)

enga

ged

in e

mer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

educ

atio

n?

1 N

o ro

le k

now

n or

iden

tified

2 M

ost s

choo

ls

prov

ide

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss

info

rmat

ion

to

teac

hers

and

st

uden

ts

3 M

ost s

choo

ls

prov

ide

emer

genc

y pr

epar

edne

ss e

duca

tion

to te

ache

rs, s

tude

nts

and

pare

nts

4 Em

erge

ncy

prep

ared

ness

ed

ucat

ion

with

ac

tiviti

es o

ccur

s in

m

ost s

choo

ls w

ith

stud

ents

, tea

cher

s an

d pa

rent

s

5 M

ost s

choo

ls a

ctiv

ely

pa

rtic

ipat

e in

em

erge

ncy

prep

ared

ness

edu

catio

n at

co

mm

unity

leve

l

Doc

umen

tati

on fr

om s

choo

ls

abou

t pla

ns/a

ctiv

itie

s

4.4

H

ow a

re a

vaila

ble

med

ical

and

pub

lic

heal

th s

ervi

ces

incl

uded

in e

mer

genc

y pl

anni

ng?

1 N

o id

ea o

r the

re

are

no s

ervi

ces

2 Ex

pect

to re

ly o

n ex

istin

g lo

cal s

ervi

ces

3 S

ome

loca

l ser

vice

s ar

e ac

tivel

y en

gage

d in

regi

onal

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

4 A

ll lo

cal s

ervi

ces

activ

ely

enga

ged

in

regi

onal

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

5 Pu

blic

hea

lth/m

edic

al

syst

emic

pla

n to

sup

port

re

spon

se a

nd re

cove

ry in

pl

ace

Self

-Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

conv

ersa

tion

wit

h he

alth

re

sour

ces

4.5

A

re re

adily

acc

essi

ble

loca

tions

ava

ilabl

e as

eva

cuat

ion

or re

cove

ry c

entr

es (e

.g.,

scho

ol h

alls

, com

mun

ity o

r sho

ppin

g ce

ntre

s, po

st o

ffice

) and

incl

uded

in

resi

lienc

e st

rate

gy?

1 N

o in

vent

ory

of

plac

es

2 So

me

inve

ntor

y of

pl

aces

, but

loca

tions

no

t wel

l-pub

licis

ed

3 In

vent

ory

of a

ll pl

aces

, bu

t not

ass

esse

d fo

r sui

tabi

lity

as a

n ev

acua

tion

cent

re

4 Si

tes

stoc

ked

and

know

n bu

t no

t suffi

cien

t for

es

timat

ed n

eed

5 W

ell-k

now

n, s

uffici

ent

site

s w

ith w

ater

/ fo

od/

info

rmat

ion

reso

urce

s w

idel

y ad

vert

ised

and

in

clud

ed in

all

plan

ning

Plan

ning

doc

umen

ts a

nd

publ

ic in

form

atio

n re

cord

s

4.6

W

hat i

s th

e le

vel o

f foo

d/w

ater

/fue

l re

adily

ava

ilabi

lity

in th

e co

mm

unity

?1

No

idea

2 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s de

pend

ent o

n da

ily

exte

rnal

food

/ w

ater

/ fu

el s

uppl

y

3 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve

up to

2 d

ays

supp

ly o

f fo

od/

wat

er/

fuel

4 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve u

p to

4 d

ays

supp

ly o

f foo

d/

wat

er/

fuel

5 M

ost h

ouse

hold

s ha

ve

over

5 d

ays

supp

ly o

f foo

d/

wat

er/

fuel

Loca

l pla

ns p

lus

loca

l sur

vey

4. W

hat

emer

genc

y p

lann

ing,

res

pon

se a

nd r

ecov

ery

reso

urce

s ar

e av

aila

ble

in

your

com

mun

ity?

25%

(6-1

1)26

-75%

(12-

24)

76-1

00%

(25-

30)

Reso

urce

s Sc

ore:

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

012

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM

21M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Conn

ecte

dnes

s

Risk

/vul

nera

bilit

y

Proc

edur

es

Reso

urce

s

TOTA

L SC

OR

E:

If yo

ur o

vera

ll sc

ore

is th

e nu

mbe

r 99

or h

ighe

r, yo

ur

com

mun

ity is

like

ly to

be

extr

emel

y re

silie

nt to

any

di

sast

er.

If yo

ur o

vera

ll sc

ore

is b

elow

the

num

ber 3

3,

your

com

mun

ity is

like

ly to

suff

er g

reat

ly in

a d

isas

ter o

r ha

ve g

reat

diffi

culty

reco

verin

g. P

ay c

aref

ul a

tten

tion

to

the

scor

es in

the

four

com

pone

nts

of re

silie

nce.

If t

he

indi

vidu

al s

core

s in

one

are

a te

nd to

be

muc

h lo

wer

than

in

the

othe

r thr

ee, t

hat a

spec

t of r

esili

ence

sho

uld

prob

ably

be

the

high

est p

riorit

y fo

r com

mun

ity a

ctio

n.

All

scor

es c

an b

e ve

ry u

sefu

l in

high

light

ing

thos

e as

pect

s of

resi

lienc

e th

at m

ost n

eed

atte

ntio

n fr

om c

omm

unit

y m

embe

rs, l

eade

rs

and

deci

sion

-mak

ers.

Each

sec

tion

is s

core

d at

the

bott

om o

f the

pag

e. N

ow

that

all

part

s ar

e do

ne, a

dd u

p al

l poi

nts

from

the

indi

vidu

al

elem

ents

.

Red

Zone

Caut

ion

Zone

Goi

ng W

ell

Ove

rall

scor

e25

%

(22-

33)

26-7

5%

(34-

98)

76-1

00%

(9

9-11

0)

Conn

ecte

dnes

s25

% (5

-10)

26-7

5%

(11-

19)

76-1

00%

(2

0-25

)

Risk

/Vul

nera

bilit

y 25

% (7

-13)

262-

75%

(1

4-28

)76

-100

%

(29-

35)

Proc

edur

es25

% (4

-8)

26-7

5%

(9-1

6)76

-100

%

(17-

20)

Reso

urce

s25

% (6

-11)

26-7

5%

(12-

24)

76-1

00%

(2

5-30

)

Rev

iew

ing

the

Scor

ecar

d a

nd N

ext

Step

s

At t

he fi

nal m

eetin

g of

the

Wor

king

Gro

up, t

he S

core

card

to

tal s

core

will

iden

tify

the

likel

y re

silie

nce

of th

e co

mm

unity

, an

d th

e to

tal f

or e

ach

of th

e fo

ur c

ompo

nent

s w

ill id

entif

y th

e co

mpo

nent

are

a(s)

mos

t in

need

of a

tten

tion.

Bas

ed o

n th

at, t

he m

embe

rs o

f the

Sco

reca

rd W

orki

ng G

roup

, the

loca

l go

vern

men

t and

oth

er c

omm

unity

mem

bers

may

und

erta

ke

one

or m

ore

of th

e fo

llow

ing

step

s:

• D

isse

min

atio

n an

d di

scus

sion

of t

he c

omm

unity

dis

aste

r re

silie

nce

scor

e w

ith c

omm

unity

mem

bers

.

• D

evel

opm

ent o

f a C

omm

unity

Res

ilien

ce A

ctio

n Pl

an to

ra

ise

the

scor

e fo

r any

item

s in

the

red

or a

mbe

r sco

ring

area

s. P

artic

ular

att

entio

n sh

ould

be

paid

to a

ny it

ems

abou

t whi

ch th

ere

was

sub

stan

tial d

isag

reem

ent o

n sc

orin

g le

vel d

urin

g th

e W

orki

ng G

roup

pro

cess

.

• Pr

ovis

ion

of in

form

atio

n to

all

loca

l bus

ines

ses,

orga

nisa

tions

and

fam

ilies

abo

ut s

teps

that

wou

ld ra

ise

the

scor

e ov

er ti

me,

with

enc

oura

gem

ent t

o fo

llow

th

roug

h on

the

reco

mm

ende

d ac

tions

.

• D

evel

opm

ent o

f a p

lan

for c

omm

unity

-leve

l sur

veys

that

pr

ovid

e m

ore

deta

iled

info

rmat

ion

abou

t com

pone

nts

of th

e Sc

orec

ard,

suc

h as

way

s in

whi

ch tr

ansi

ent

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs a

re b

eing

incl

uded

in p

lans

, or t

he

leve

l of m

eani

ngfu

l vol

unte

eris

m in

the

com

mun

ity.

• D

ecis

ion

abou

t whe

n to

repe

at th

e Sc

orec

ard

proc

ess

(pro

babl

y 12

mon

ths)

.

Com

mun

ity

Dis

aste

r R

esili

ence

Sco

re fo

r: .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

112

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


22M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

CEN

SUS

– Th

e Ce

nsus

pro

vide

s a

snap

shot

of t

he n

atio

n,

with

dat

a av

aila

ble

at th

e po

stal

cod

e le

vel.

Dat

a ar

e ke

pt

by th

e A

BS a

nd a

re a

cces

sibl

e at

<ht

tp://

ww

w.a

bs.g

ov.a

u/ce

nsus

>

Com

mun

ity

– A

gro

up o

f peo

ple

livin

g to

geth

er w

ithin

de

fined

geo

grap

hica

l and

geo

polit

ical

are

a su

ch a

s a

tow

n,

dist

rict o

r cou

ncil.

Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

ems

– A

ny te

chni

cally

sup

port

ed

netw

ork

that

allo

ws

peop

le to

mai

ntai

n co

ntac

t whe

n no

t in

phys

ical

pro

xim

ity, s

uch

as la

nd li

ne a

nd m

obile

te

leph

one

syst

ems,

inte

rnet

-bas

ed s

yste

m, r

adio

or w

alki

e-ta

lkie

sys

tem

s.

Conn

ecte

dnes

s –

The

degr

ee to

whi

ch s

ocia

l coh

esio

n an

d su

ppor

t are

offe

red

from

one

mem

ber o

f the

co

mm

unity

to a

noth

er.

Dai

ly P

opul

atio

n –

The

num

ber o

f ind

ivid

uals

in th

e co

mm

unity

dur

ing

the

usua

l wor

k da

y. T

his

incl

udes

co

mm

uter

s co

min

g in

to th

e co

mm

unity

for d

aily

wor

k ac

tiviti

es, b

ut d

oes

not c

ount

mem

bers

of t

he re

side

nt

popu

latio

n w

ho le

ave

the

com

mun

ity re

gula

rly fo

r dai

ly

wor

k ac

tiviti

es.

Emer

genc

y se

rvic

es –

Gov

ernm

ent a

nd v

olun

teer

or

gani

satio

ns e

stab

lishe

d to

pro

mot

e an

d en

sure

pub

lic

safe

ty, i

nclu

ding

pol

ice,

Cou

ntry

Fire

Ser

vice

(CFS

), St

ate

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es (S

ES),

and

St. J

ohn

Am

bula

nce.

ABS

– A

ustr

alia

n Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics,

Aus

tral

ia’s

inde

pend

ent a

nd o

ffici

al s

tatis

tical

org

anis

atio

n. A

cces

sibl

e at

<w

ww

.abs

.gov

.au>

All-

haza

rds

– Th

e ap

proa

ch to

pla

nnin

g fo

r pot

entia

l em

erge

ncie

s an

d di

sast

ers

that

is in

clus

ive

of a

ny ty

pe

of in

cide

nt, n

atur

al o

r man

mad

e, th

at w

arra

nts

actio

n to

pr

otec

t life

, pro

pert

y, e

nviro

nmen

t, an

d pu

blic

hea

lth o

r sa

fety

, and

to m

inim

ise

disr

uptio

ns o

f gov

ernm

ent,

soci

al,

or e

cono

mic

act

iviti

es.

AN

DRS

– A

ustr

alia

n N

atio

nal S

trat

egy

for D

isas

ter

Resi

lienc

e, th

e na

tiona

l pol

icy

behi

nd th

e Co

mm

unity

D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd, w

ith a

goa

l of m

akin

g al

l of

Aus

tral

ia re

silie

nt w

hen

face

d w

ith a

ny ty

pe o

f dis

aste

r. T

he

com

plet

e st

rate

gy is

acc

essi

ble

at <

http

://w

ww

.coa

g.go

v.au

/coa

g_m

eetin

g_ou

tcom

es/2

0110

213/

docs

/nat

iona

l_st

rate

gy_d

isas

ter_

resi

lienc

e.pd

f>

Aus

tral

ian

Com

mun

ity

Indi

cato

rs N

etw

ork

– Th

e ex

tens

ive

grou

p of

org

anis

atio

ns li

nkin

g da

ta a

t the

st

ate

and

loca

l lev

el to

ena

ble

mon

itorin

g of

cha

nge

in

com

mun

ities

. A

cces

sibl

e at

<ht

tp://

mc2

.vic

net.n

et.a

u/ho

me/

acin

/web

/Fro

ntpa

ge.h

tml>

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce F

ram

ewor

k –

The

conc

eptu

al b

asis

for t

he A

ND

RS, a

cces

sibl

e at

: <ht

tp://

ww

w.e

m.g

ov.a

u/Pu

blic

atio

ns/P

rogr

am%

20pu

blic

atio

ns/

Page

s/N

atio

nalD

isas

terR

esili

ence

Fram

ewor

k.as

px>

Enga

ged

(Com

mun

ity

Enga

gem

ent)

– T

he e

xten

t to

whi

ch th

e m

embe

rs o

f a c

omm

unity

are

invo

lved

in

proj

ects

whi

ch a

re b

enefi

cial

for t

he lo

cal s

ocie

ty.

Hea

lth

reso

urce

s –

The

com

plet

e sp

ectr

um o

f or

gani

satio

ns a

nd w

orke

rs p

rovi

ding

ser

vice

s di

rect

ed

tow

ard

mai

ntai

ning

or i

mpr

ovin

g he

alth

sta

tus

and

resp

ondi

ng to

illn

ess

or in

jury

, inc

ludi

ng h

ospi

tals

, men

tal

heal

th w

orke

rs, g

ener

al p

ract

ition

ers,

publ

ic h

ealth

w

orke

rs, a

mbu

lanc

e, c

omm

unity

nur

ses

and

allie

d he

alth

pr

ofes

sion

als.

IAP2

Spe

ctru

m –

A m

odel

dev

elop

ed b

y th

e In

tern

atio

nal

Ass

ocia

tion

for P

ublic

Par

ticip

atio

n to

mea

sure

the

leve

l of

pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

with

in a

com

mun

ity.

Acc

essi

ble

at

<ht

tp://

ww

w.ia

p2.o

rg/a

ssoc

iatio

ns/4

748/

files

/IAP2

%20

Spec

trum

_ver

tical

.pdf

>

NBN

– N

atio

nal B

road

band

Net

wor

k, th

e ne

twor

k of

hig

h sp

eed

broa

dban

d co

nnec

tions

aim

ed a

t ass

urin

g in

tern

et

acce

ss to

all

Aus

tral

ian

prem

ises

.

Out

reac

h –

The

degr

ee to

whi

ch a

n or

gani

satio

n or

gov

ernm

ent t

akes

act

ion

to m

ake

prog

ram

s an

d in

form

atio

n ea

sily

acc

essi

ble

with

in th

e co

mm

unity

.

Post

-eve

nt a

sses

smen

t – T

he s

yste

mat

ic g

athe

ring

and

criti

quin

g of

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e pr

epar

atio

n fo

r an

impe

ndin

g di

sast

er e

vent

, the

dam

age

done

by

the

even

t, th

e im

med

iate

resp

onse

to th

e ev

ent,

and

the

step

s ta

ken

to re

turn

to th

e pr

e-ev

ent o

r hig

her l

evel

of f

unct

ioni

ng.

Ap

pen

dix

1: G

loss

ary

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

212

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM

23M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

TRI –

Tor

rens

Res

ilien

ce In

stitu

te, a

col

labo

ratio

n of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ade

laid

e, F

linde

rs U

nive

rsity

, Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Aus

tral

ia a

nd C

ranfi

eld

Uni

vers

ity e

stab

lishe

d to

im

prov

e th

e ca

paci

ty o

f org

anis

atio

ns a

nd s

ocie

ties

to

resp

ond

to d

isru

ptiv

e ch

alle

nges

whi

ch h

ave

the

pote

ntia

l to

ove

rwhe

lm lo

cal d

isas

ter m

anag

emen

t cap

abili

ties

and

plan

s. In

form

atio

n ac

cess

ible

at <

http

://w

ww

.to

rren

sres

ilien

ce.o

rg>

Resi

dent

Pop

ulat

ion

– In

divi

dual

s or

fam

ilies

livi

ng fu

ll-tim

e in

the

com

mun

ity (b

oth

hom

e ow

ners

and

rent

ers)

.

Resi

lienc

e –

A c

omm

unity

is re

silie

nt w

hen

mem

bers

of

the

popu

latio

n ar

e co

nnec

ted

to o

ne a

noth

er a

nd w

ork

toge

ther

, so

that

they

are

abl

e to

func

tion

and

sust

ain

criti

cal s

yste

ms,

even

und

er s

tres

s; ad

apt t

o ch

ange

s in

th

e ph

ysic

al, s

ocia

l or e

cono

mic

env

ironm

ent;

be s

elf-

relia

nt if

ext

erna

l res

ourc

es a

re li

mite

d or

cut

off

; and

lear

n fro

m e

xper

ienc

e to

impr

ove

itsel

f ove

r tim

e. C

omm

unity

re

silie

nce

is m

ore

than

the

resi

lienc

e of

indi

vidu

als,

fam

ilies

or

spe

cific

org

anis

atio

ns, t

houg

h al

l of t

hose

are

key

co

mpo

nent

s of

com

mun

ity re

silie

nce.

Soci

al in

dex

– A

ny n

umer

ical

sca

le u

sed

to c

ompa

re s

ocia

l va

riabl

es w

ith o

ne a

noth

er o

r with

a re

fere

nce

num

ber.

Soci

al m

edia

– W

eb-b

ased

and

mob

ile te

chno

logi

es o

r ap

plic

atio

ns u

sed

for t

he p

urpo

se o

f com

mun

icat

ion

and

netw

orki

ng w

ith o

ther

s.

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic In

dica

tors

– L

inke

d in

form

atio

n m

aint

aine

d by

ABS

on

soci

al s

ituat

ion

and

econ

omic

s th

at

can

info

rm p

olic

y-m

akin

g an

d de

cisi

ons.

Acc

essi

ble

at

<ht

tp://

ww

w.a

bs.g

ov.a

u/w

ebsi

tedb

s/D

3310

114.

nsf/

hom

e/Se

ifa_e

ntry

_pag

e>

Tra

nsie

nt P

opul

atio

n –

Peop

le w

ho s

tay

or w

ork

in a

pl

ace

tem

pora

rily

or fo

r a s

hort

tim

e, in

clud

ing

but n

ot

limite

d to

trav

elle

rs, t

ouris

ts, t

empo

rary

wor

kers

, stu

dent

s, co

nfer

ence

or r

ally

att

ende

es.

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

312

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


24M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Ap

pen

dix

2: S

amp

le le

tter

of i

nvit

atio

n to

the

Sco

reca

rd W

orki

ng G

roup

Dea

r XXX

:

[Tow

n na

me]

is in

tere

sted

in a

ssur

ing

the

high

est p

ossi

ble

leve

l of c

omm

unity

resi

lienc

e, s

houl

d an

em

erge

ncy

or d

isas

ter s

trik

e.

As

a be

ginn

ing

step

, it i

s im

port

ant t

o id

entif

y ou

r cur

rent

leve

l of r

esili

ence

, and

thos

e ar

eas

in w

hich

we

shou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n.

To th

at e

nd, w

e w

ill b

e co

mpl

etin

g th

e Co

mm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce S

core

card

, rec

ently

dev

elop

ed b

y th

e To

rren

s Re

silie

nce

Inst

itute

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith th

e N

atio

nal E

mer

genc

y M

anag

emen

t Com

mitt

ee.

The

Scor

ecar

d is

not

a re

port

to a

nyon

e ou

tsid

e ou

r com

mun

ity, n

or w

ill w

e be

com

pare

d to

oth

er c

omm

uniti

es: i

t is

a to

ol fo

r our

use

as

we

wor

k to

geth

er to

war

d re

silie

nce.

You

are

invi

ted

to b

ecom

e a

mem

ber o

f the

{tow

n na

me]

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce S

core

card

Wor

king

Gro

up, w

hich

will

hav

e its

firs

t or

ient

atio

n m

eetin

g on

day

/mon

th a

t XX

o’cl

ock

at [l

ocat

ion]

. You

r com

mitm

ent w

ould

be

part

icip

atio

n in

this

orie

ntat

ion,

plu

s tw

o ad

ditio

nal m

eetin

gs o

ver t

he n

ext 6

-9 w

eeks

. Th

e fir

st tw

o m

eetin

gs w

ill b

e no

mor

e th

an tw

o ho

urs

in le

ngth

and

the

final

m

eetin

g ap

prox

imat

ely

one

hour

long

. In

add

ition

, you

may

be

aske

d to

hel

p lo

cate

impo

rtan

t inf

orm

atio

n ab

out o

ur c

omm

unity

be

twee

n m

eetin

gs.

I hop

e th

at y

ou w

ill a

ccep

t thi

s in

vita

tion.

If y

ou h

ave

ques

tions

bef

ore

mak

ing

a de

cisi

on, p

leas

e co

ntac

t me

or X

XXX,

who

is

coor

dina

ting

the

effor

t for

us.

Tha

nk y

ou fo

r you

r ong

oing

con

trib

utio

ns to

our

com

mun

ity li

ves.

Sinc

erel

y,

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

412

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM

25M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

Ap

pen

dix

3: S

amp

le le

tter

of i

nvit

atio

n to

Wor

king

Gro

up C

hair

Dea

r XXX

:

Than

k yo

u fo

r agr

eein

g to

ser

ve o

n th

e [t

own

nam

e] D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

Sco

reca

rd W

orki

ng G

roup

. I h

ope

that

you

will

ac

cept

this

furt

her i

nvita

tion

to s

erve

as

Cha

ir of

the

Wor

king

Gro

up. Y

our k

now

ledg

e of

our

tow

n an

d yo

ur a

bilit

y to

hel

p a

grou

p st

ay o

n ta

rget

and

on

time

mak

e yo

u an

idea

l can

dida

te fo

r thi

s ro

le.

As

you

know

, the

Wor

king

Gro

up w

ill b

e m

eetin

g ju

st 3

tim

es o

ver t

he n

ext f

ew w

eeks

. A

s C

hair,

you

wou

ld b

e ex

pect

ed to

he

lp th

e gr

oup

mem

bers

focu

s on

the

issu

es ra

ised

by

the

Scor

ecar

d, u

se c

lear

term

inol

ogy

(avo

idin

g ac

rony

ms)

, ass

ure

that

th

e vi

ewpo

ints

of a

ll m

embe

rs a

re h

eard

, fac

ilita

te c

onse

nsus

on

the

scor

e to

be

assi

gned

to e

ach

elem

ent,

and

sum

mar

ise

the

area

s of

gre

ates

t con

cern

for f

utur

e ac

tion.

You

may

als

o be

ask

ed to

pre

sent

a s

umm

ary

of th

e W

orki

ng G

roup

’s fin

al d

ecis

ions

to th

e [t

own

coun

cil/t

own

mee

ting/

othe

r] fo

llow

ing

the

final

mee

ting

of th

e W

orki

ng G

roup

.

I hop

e th

at y

ou w

ill a

ccep

t thi

s ro

le.

If yo

u ha

ve a

ny q

uest

ions

, ple

ase

cont

act m

e or

XXX

X, w

ho is

coo

rdin

atin

g th

e eff

ort f

or

us. Y

our o

ngoi

ng e

ffort

s on

beh

alf o

f the

resi

dent

s of

[tow

n] a

re g

reat

ly a

ppre

ciat

ed.

Sinc

erel

y,

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

512

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


26M

odel

and

Tool

for C

omm

unity

Dis

aste

r Res

ilien

ce

2.

DRA

FT A

GEN

DA

: MEE

TIN

G T

WO

(FIR

ST S

CORI

NG

M

EETI

NG

)

I. W

elco

me

and

revi

ew o

f int

rodu

ctio

ns (i

f nee

ded)

II.

Rem

inde

r of p

urpo

se o

f Sco

reca

rd

III.

Plan

for d

iscu

ssio

n of

item

s

a.

Ann

ounc

e ite

m

b.

Ask

for s

how

of h

ands

on

scor

e

c.

If al

l agr

ee, m

ove

on

d.

If di

sagr

ee, a

llow

up

to 1

0 m

inut

es fo

r di

scus

sion

e.

If st

ill u

nabl

e to

agr

ee, i

dent

ify th

e ra

nge

of

desi

red

scor

es a

nd le

ave

for fi

nal m

eetin

g

IV.

Dis

cuss

eac

h ite

m in

turn

V.

Iden

tify

any

item

s on

whi

ch a

gree

men

t was

not

re

ache

d

a.

If fu

rthe

r inf

orm

atio

n w

ould

be

help

ful,

iden

tify

som

eone

to g

athe

r nee

ded

info

b.

Requ

est t

houg

htfu

l con

side

ratio

n by

all

prio

r to

final

mee

ting

VI.

Adj

ourn

men

t

1.

DRA

FT A

GEN

DA

: M

EETI

NG

ON

E (O

RIEN

TATI

ON

)

I. W

elco

me

and

intr

oduc

tions

o In

trod

uctio

n of

wor

king

gro

up c

hair

by M

ayor

II.

Ove

rvie

w o

f Com

mun

ity D

isas

ter R

esili

ence

III.

Intr

oduc

tion

of th

e Sc

orec

ard

purp

ose

IV.

Brie

f Rev

iew

of S

core

card

V.

Dec

isio

ns a

bout

dat

a ga

ther

ing/

assi

gnm

ents

VI.

Oth

er d

iscu

ssio

n

3.

DRA

FT A

GEN

DA

: FIN

AL

SCO

RIN

G M

EETI

NG

I. W

elco

me

and

revi

ew o

f pur

pose

of S

core

card

for

com

mun

ity

II.

Qui

ck re

view

of a

ll ite

ms

on w

hich

agr

eem

ent w

as

reac

hed

at p

rior m

eetin

g

III.

Dis

cuss

ion

of it

ems

on w

hich

agr

eem

ent w

as n

ot

reac

hed:

a.

For a

ny it

em o

n w

hich

agr

eem

ent c

anno

t be

reac

hed,

sco

re a

t low

est l

evel

und

er

cons

ider

atio

n

IV.

Calc

ulat

e nu

mer

ic s

core

for e

ach

com

pone

nt o

f the

Sc

orec

ard,

and

the

over

all s

core

V.

Iden

tify

thos

e ar

eas

that

mos

t sug

gest

lim

ited

or

lack

of r

esili

ence

, and

dis

cuss

act

ion

step

s th

at

can

be ta

ken

to s

tren

gthe

n th

ose

area

s, w

ith

assi

gnm

ents

VI.

Det

erm

ine

timel

ine

for a

ny s

elec

ted

follo

w u

p ac

tiviti

es

VII.

Det

erm

ine

best

met

hod

for s

harin

g Sc

orec

ard

info

rmat

ion

with

the

com

mun

ity

VIII.

Eva

luat

ion

of th

e Sc

orec

ard

a.

Intr

oduc

tion

of th

e se

lf-as

sess

men

t she

et a

nd

requ

est S

core

card

Wor

king

Gro

up m

embe

rs to

se

nd it

to T

RI w

ithin

a fo

rtni

ght i

n th

e en

velo

p pr

ovid

ed

b.

Gro

up d

iscu

ssio

n on

the

eval

uatio

n of

the

Scor

ecar

d

IX.

Than

ks to

all

and

adjo

urnm

ent.

Ap

pen

dix

4: S

amp

le a

gend

as fo

r Wor

king

Gro

up M

eeti

ngs

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

612

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM

Not

es:

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

712

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


Not

es:

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

TRI_

Tool

kitR

epor

t.ind

d 2

712

/12/

2012

4:

07:0

2 PM


Torrens Resilience Institute Torrens Building 220 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

Tel: +61 8 8221 5440 Email: [email protected]

www.torrensresilience.org


Developing a model and tool to measure community disaster...

Documents

Transcript of Developing a model and tool to measure community disaster...