Housing policies throughout Australia are failing to adequately account for disaster management, prevention, preparedness and recovery, two new reports have found.

Released by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the reports examined the effectiveness of current housing policies throughout Australia in terms of planning and managing for extreme weather events and natural disasters.

(top image: Houses in Corinda flooded during 2022 Brisbane flood. Image by kgbo republished under  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license)

Key findings included that:

• there is insufficient focus on disaster risk and prevention in housing policies
• private renters are the most vulnerable to natural disasters
• there are challenges in finding a suitable balance between building critical housing supply and minimising disaster risk; and
• disaster management information is fragmented and difficult to access.

The latest report comes amid ongoing concern about the potential vulnerability of Australia’s housing stock to natural hazards such as bushfires, floods, storms and cyclones.

Such concerns have been increasing on account of trends such as population growth; increasing concentrations of population within urban areas; increased settlement in areas such as coastal zones, flood zones and peri-urban areas on the outskirts of cities; and more frequent and more severe extreme weather events.

In a report released last year, the Insurance Council of Australia indicated that the average value that was paid out by insurers to customers impacted by extreme weather events averaged $4.5 billion over the five years to 2023/24.

This is more than double the annual average of $2.1 billon that was paid out over the three decades to 2023/24.

According to that report, the most significant risk relates to flooding.  All up, around 1.2 million properties around the nation face some form of flood risk.

In some cases, governments are acting.

In late 2023, the NSW Government abandoned proposals for two massive housing projects across the flood-prone Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley in Sydney’s west and scaled back plans for a third.

In its reports, AHURI made several findings.

First, it found that there is a greater need to give more priority to disaster risk reduction in housing policy.

When pursing housing strategies, for example, it is important to consider potential disaster risks such as floods, bushfires or coastal erosion. This is particularly the case when choosing a suitable location for housing.

In its research, AHURI found that disaster risk reduction has been strongly embedded into planning processes in respect of bushfire risk.

However, it found that disaster risk reduction is less clearly defined and regulated in respect of risks associated with other natural hazards such as flooding.

Further, the report acknowledges challenges associated with competing political, social, economic and environmental considerations.

Take, for example, ‘managed retreat’ policies, which see households or whole communities moved from high-risk to lower risk areas.

These types of initiatives may be effective in reducing disaster risk but are often unpopular on account of the emotional impact which such an exercise may involve for families.

Furthermore, the need to reduce natural hazard risk needs to be balanced against other political, economic and social considerations.

These include the need to deliver additional housing supply along with the natural quality of life appeal that is associated with living close to the coast, rivers or bushland.

Beyond this, the research found that data related to disaster risk is fragmented.

Whilst much of the required data does indeed exist, this is scattered across various government departments and in private companies. Often, this data is contained in different formats which fail to align.

In particular, the research found that there was no standardised approach to recording data and information in respect of flooding, bushfire risk and cyclone risk. As a result, there are significant gaps in how these were recorded across states and sectors.

This can create additional barriers in terms of assessment, planning and design of policies which are effective in reducing risk.

Furthermore, silos which often operate between government agencies create a disconnect between disaster planning and housing policy. This makes it difficult for planning systems to keep up with new risk data and holds back efforts to more effectively develop housing which offers greater disaster resilience.

Finally, the research found that private renters are most vulnerable to disasters.

Compared with their owner-occupier counterparts, private renters often live in lower quality housing, earn less money and lack insurance.

In addition, support programs which are implemented following natural disasters often target owner-occupier households and may not include renters. This can make it more challenging for renters to find temporary accommodation after a disaster occurs.

Whilst the report acknowledged that temporary housing may help families to return to normal life, it stresses that support may be needed for years whilst permanent homes are being reconstructed.

In addition, it notes that the quality, cultural fit and location of temporary housing may also be important in helping households to rebuild their lives.

Five actions

Combined, the two reports suggest 40 potential actions across eight areas.

In particular, it urges action to:

• create planning policies which adequately consider potential risks and impacts from natural disasters
• ensure that temporary housing programs are adequate to cater for all households following a natural disaster
• ensure that private renters are included in temporary housing and recovery programs
• engage and include local communities in disaster planning and risk management; and
• improve collaboration between government and other organisations to ensure that all have access to high quality data in order to effectively plan for and mitigate disaster risk.

The two reports were undertaken by researchers from RMIT University and UNSW and by researchers from Curtin University, RMIT University and UNSW respectively.

The reports are available on the AHURI website at https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/435 and https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/436

Enjoying Sourceable articles? Subscribe for Free and receive daily updates of all articles which are published on our site

Want to grow your sales, reach more new clients and expand your client base across Australia’s design and construction sector?

Advertise on Sourceable and have your business seen by the thousands of architects, engineers, builders/construction contractors, subcontractors/trade contractors, property developers and building industry suppliers who read our stories across the civil, commercial and residential construction sector