IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v49y2022i5p1371-1388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land use planning: An opportunity to avert devastation from bushfires

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Maund
  • Mark Maund
  • Thayaparan Gajendran

Abstract

Land use planning (LUP) provides a mechanism to reduce risk and increase resilience to natural hazards. We sought to understand the extent that key stakeholders in LUP consider natural hazard risk in determination of rezoning applications. The aim was to identify why land uses are permitted within areas exposed to risk of natural hazards like bushfires. Presenting the case of New South Wales, a state ravaged by devastating bushfires, we explore decision-making practices within the regulatory planning environment. We utilised a qualitative exploratory research design involving a multi-criteria decision-making framework as a lens to explore how key stakeholders make decisions to consider bushfire risk within the policy environment. Our findings identify the lack of a consistent process employed in LUP decision-making and priority given to decision-making criteria that emphasises achieving targets for employment and housing and results in low priority given to bushfire risk. We suggest that placing higher priority on bushfire risk in decision-making, within and between organisations, is necessary to consider bushfire risk within regulatory LUP activities to support disaster risk reduction and create resilient communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Maund & Mark Maund & Thayaparan Gajendran, 2022. "Land use planning: An opportunity to avert devastation from bushfires," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1371-1388, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:1371-1388
    DOI: 10.1177/23998083211064291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23998083211064291
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23998083211064291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hallegatte,Stephane & Bangalore,Mook & Jouanjean,Marie Agnes, 2016. "Higher losses and slower development in the absence of disaster risk management investments," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7632, The World Bank.
    2. Gluszak, Michal & Zygmunt, Robert, 2018. "Development density, administrative decisions, and land values: An empirical investigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 153-161.
    3. Tsuji, Masatsugu & Choe, Jong-Il, 2004. "An ordered probit analysis of factors promoting a regional information policy: the case of Japanese local governments," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 203-212.
    4. Lichfield,Nathaniel, 2009. "Economics in Urban Conservation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521105309.
    5. Pinke, Zsolt & Kiss, Márton & Lövei, Gábor L., 2018. "Developing an integrated land use planning system on reclaimed wetlands of the Hungarian Plain using economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 299-308.
    6. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    7. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    8. Neumayer, Eric & Plümper, Thomas & Barthel, Fabian, 2014. "The political economy of natural disaster damage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50699, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Emberger, Guenter & Pfaffenbichler, Paul & Jaensirisak, Sittha & Timms, Paul, 2008. ""Ideal" decision-making processes for transport planning: A comparison between Europe and South East Asia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 341-349, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayyoob Sharifi & Yoshiki Yamagata, 2022. "Smart cities and climate-resilient urban planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1347-1353, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    2. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Kaddour Mehiriz & Pierre Gosselin, 2016. "Municipalities' Preparedness for Weather Hazards and Response to Weather Warnings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Laura A. Bakkensen & Robert O. Mendelsohn, 2016. "Risk and Adaptation: Evidence from Global Hurricane Damages and Fatalities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 555-587.
    5. Henk Broekhuizen & Maarten J. IJzerman & A. Brett Hauber & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2017. "Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 259-269, March.
    6. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    7. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Chen, Mei-Ping, 2020. "Do natural disasters and geopolitical risks matter for cross-border country exchange-traded fund returns?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    8. William C. N. Dunlop & C. Daniel Mullins & Olaf Pirk & Ron Goeree & Maarten J. Postma & Ashley Enstone & Louise Heron, 2016. "BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 1051-1065, October.
    9. Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos, 2016. "Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 435-446, May.
    10. Axel C. Mühlbacher & John F. P. Bridges & Susanne Bethge & Ch.-Markos Dintsios & Anja Schwalm & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Matthias Nübling, 2017. "Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 155-165, March.
    11. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & Anthony J. Culyer, 2018. "Does MCDA Trump CEA?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 147-151, April.
    12. Ariel Beresniak & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Jean Auray & Alain Wever & Jean-Claude Praet & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Danielle Dupont & Michel Lamure & Gerard Duru, 2015. "Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 61-69, January.
    13. Chisholm, Orin & Sharry, Patrick & Phillips, Lawrence, 2022. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for benefit-risk analysis by national regulatory authorities," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114407, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Graham, Carol & Nikolova, Milena, 2015. "Bentham or Aristotle in the Development Process? An Empirical Investigation of Capabilities and Subjective Well-Being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 163-179.
    15. Mikkel Bojesen & Luc Boerboom & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2014. "Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector," IFRO Working Paper 2014/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    16. López-Bastida, J. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Aranda-Reneo, I. & Trapero-Bertran, M. & Kanavos, P. & Rodriguez Martin, B., 2019. "Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 152-158.
    17. Kevin Marsh & J. Jaime Caro & Alaa Hamed & Erica Zaiser, 2017. "Amplifying Each Patient’s Voice: A Systematic Review of Multi-criteria Decision Analyses Involving Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 155-162, April.
    18. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    19. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    20. Thomas Ward & Ruben E. Mujica-Mota & Anne E. Spencer & Antonieta Medina-Lara, 2022. "Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 45-64, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:1371-1388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.