Figure 6 - uploaded by Celeste Young
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The purpose of this framework is to support better strategic management of risks associated with natural hazards. It does this through providing a series of tasks that support the allocation of risk ownership as part of strategic planning activities. This framework is not intended to replace current risk processes, but to enhance and add value to w...
Similar publications
This article aims to explore the importance of strategic management practices in organisational performance with reference to the Public Sector in Zimbabwe. Traditional models for strategic management are approaching limits in the light of increasing uncertainty to define what public service organisations must be able to achieve in terms of efficie...
Citations
... For example, key political constraints may arise in the allocation and distribution of responsibility 40 . A clear challenge for assessing complex climate risk is the unclear or absent ownership of complex climate risk 41 . For example, the European Union is currently developing its first EU-wide climate risk assessment, focusing specifically on crossborder, cascading, and compound risk, with the aim of developing methods, mapping knowledge needs, and building on previous EU projects and reports to identify adaptation policy priorities and supporting policy development 2 . ...
Almost 25 years ago, sociologist Anthony Giddens wrote that ‘risk and responsibility are in fact closely linked’ ¹ . Extending this to climate risk, this perspective paper argues that climate risk assessment is not just a scientific endeavour but also deeply political. As climate risks become more complex and demand more science- and policy-driven integration across sectors and regions, assessments may involve significant political constraints that impede effective and just climate adaptation. Using a framework of integration challenges, this paper uncovers political constraints that may arise in developing integrated climate risk assessment. It argues that the framing and structuring of climate risk assessment may yield political constraints such as biases towards certain groups, sectoral incoherence, decisions not aiding the most exposed, distributional conflicts, and ambiguous responsibility in managing complex climate risks. Left unaddressed, such political constraints may hamper climate adaptation rather than enable progress.
... The diversification of activities undertaken by emergency management organizations and the need to represent diverse communities has increased over time (Mitchell, 2003) and heightens the need for more diversity in workforces (Young, Jones, & Kumnick, 2018;Young, Pyke, et al., 2018). This improves understanding of how risks can affect communities (Young et al., 2017). ...
It could be easy to believe that an emergency impacts us all the same way and that gender, skin tone, ability and religion don't matter when it comes to emergency plans. But this is simply not true. Planning and response to disruptive events needs to consider the individual needs and vulnerabilities of the people involved which can be exacerbated due to gender, race, ethnicity, age, social class and disability. The COVID‐19 pandemic has brought the stark reality of vulnerability and disproportionality into focus, in planning for and responding to major incidents and emergencies. In recognition of this, London's NHS emergency preparedness, resilience and response (EPRR) community decided to investigate our own diversity to understand whether we represent Londoners and to use our findings to inform future NHS preparedness for major incidents and emergencies. This paper describes the first part: understanding our own diversity. Armed with this knowledge, we will now strive to be more inclusive of all Londoners in our planning.
... This document is a support document for the Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice (Young and Jones, 2020), which provides overarching concepts, principles and processes that guide management activities. As a result, it should be read in conjunction with the framework. ...
... The most direct way to do this is to integrate D&I risk into organisational risk management planning systems and processes. This requires four areas of activity -risk ownership, literacy, capability and capacity, and the systems and structures to carry this out ( Figure 2) -that are detailed in the overarching Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice (Young and Jones, 2020). All levels within an organisation need to understand and accept responsibility, and identifying and addressing capability and skills gaps is also important during this process. ...
... All levels within an organisation need to understand and accept responsibility, and identifying and addressing capability and skills gaps is also important during this process. Figure 2: Key activities that support embedding D&I risk into existing systems (Young and Jones, 2020) ...
This document presents case studies and examples of best practice and knowledge that have been collated with experts within emergency management organisations who were part of this study. As practice is evolving rapidly, its purpose is to provide reference points for practitioners to support broader development of the diversity and inclusion (D&I) agenda. They show that organisations are learning and building as they go, and that some of the best resources the emergency management services (EMS) have are their practitioners. It also provides resource materials that have been developed to support D&I practitioners by the EMS and other industries. This document is a support document for the D&I framework for emergency management policy and practice (Young and Jones, 2020), which provides overarching concepts, principles and processes that guide management activities. As a result, it is recommended that this be read in conjunction with the framework.
... As part of the project 'Mapping and understanding Bushfire and Natural Hazard Risk at the Institutional Scale', a Risk Ownership Framework was developed for emergency management policy and practice (Young et al. 2017). It also provides guidance on how the risk ownership tasks can be integrated into the National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (AIDR 2015). ...
... The Risk Ownership Framework for Emergency Management Policy and Practice (Young et al. 2017) was developed in collaboration with emergency management organisations and risk practitioners as part of a Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project and provides a basis for implementation. ...
... Source: Young et al. 2017 return people to a state of safety and security so they can recover and avoid the ongoing sense of dislocation and flow-on effects and consequences that may result. This requires a collaborative effort from multiple agencies and organisations including peak bodies, notfor-profit organisations and community groups that play a specific role in supporting and facilitating recovery. ...
As the risks encountered by natural hazards change and become more dynamic, so too, does the task of recovering from them. To manage natural hazards, planners must plan for the unexpected; building resilience
before, during and after events. Currently, recovery funding is limited to a two-year window. Devastated communities that do not recover during this time rely on ad hoc funding to support patchy recovery beyond this. Planning for long-term recovery needs to be embedded throughout the risk assessment process to be effective. This presents a number of challenges. By identifying the longer-term risks and their consequences in advance, sustained recovery can be planned for all social, environmental and economic values (assets). This will determine what recovery interventions may be needed and when they are likely be most effective.
This paper contributes to knowledge of disaster resilience policy implementation in Australia and proposes measures to strengthen partnerships between government and the business sector to enhance national disaster resilience capacity. In Australia, business makes a significant contribution to disaster relief and recovery. Even so, there are unexplored opportunities to enhance the role of business in disaster resilience, particularly through partnerships with government. The extent that state, regional and local‐level disaster plans engage business in disaster relief and recovery is described and their relatively less prominent involvement in disaster resilience is discussed. Examples of disaster resilience policies and their capacity to influence business practices to support disaster resilience are introduced with suggestions for how they can be enhanced. Some potential benefits and pitfalls of public–private sector collaboration are explored and it is noted that, in disaster resilience settings, these risks can be ameliorated through appropriate implementation. This paper examines the contribution that business makes to disaster resilience in Australia and suggests measures to enhance this contribution. This can primarily be achieved by building mutual trust through closer business and government engagement throughout the disaster management cycle including formal public–private partnerships and/or less formal working relationships.
