What needs to be in place for informed risk-based planning decisions
Establish proposal context - Define the risk-based planning objectives
Establish alternatives - Evaluate alternatives - Implement decision
Monitor decision - Evaluate effectiveness of tools used, decision made and context changes
Fire Response Pla EP
n
Analysts
- GIS
EP
Environmental and
risk plan
EP
Inventory of Experts
and consultants
EP
Response options
EP
Develop a
compendium of
case studies to
illustrate best
practices (include
case studies w ithin
the proposal
” Guide” )
P rovide a lexicon
of defi nitions for
common
understanding on
w ebsite (and
abbreviations)
Clarify and
defi ne roles and
responsibilities
in planning,
development and
emergency
management,
and others
Es tab li s h p o li c y
fr am ew o r k
OCP th at in c lu d es
HRVA in fo rm ati o n
Zo n in g
it
Dev elo p m en t Perm
Areas
es ,
Pro v in c ial g u id eli n
s tan d ard s an d
en ts
reg u lato ry req u ir em
c es s
Es tab li s h p o li c y p ro
CRHNet
Establish “ Risk
Tolerance”
threshold
Include
public
opportunities
consultations
input /
feedback
Develop w hat
the “ level of
safety” / risk
threshold is
must be
adopted by
the community
develop policy
around this
An in-depth Regional
hazard, risk and
vulnerability
Phase
constuction to
maintain facility
operation at all
times
Essential facility
at risk from one
hazard contingency
plan?
EP
“Lia
b
Imm ility
u
for p nity” b
y
a
ove st over law
r
s
cha climate ight
nge
issu
es
Environmental
survey
Transportation
study / plan
- bridges
- response time
- critical access
EP
Haz
ard
ous
ma
teri
al s
-m
ould tudy
- as
bes
tos
- le
ad
ple
o
e
p
e
r
u
Mak e s ed t o
ar e t r ai n n d r ep o r t s
u n d er s t a w h at t h e
an d k n o wo n s o f t h ei r
i m p l i c at i en t s ar e.
as s es s m
Develop
Comprehensive Hazard
Mapping – Local and
Provincial
+ Flooding
+ Earthquakes
+ Landslides
+ Fire
+ Tsunami
Hazard zone wide
mitigation and
contingency
alternatives?
- upstream
mitigation
- mutual aid
coverage
- cost sharing down
stream- warning
systems- structural
or non structuralsafe room
EP
Re-assessment of
a 200 year and
300 year flood
EP
T
S
R
WO
E
S
A
C
O
I
R
A
N
E
C
S
Full
spe
cifie
HRV
d
A
by Q
P
EP
Tools
EP
CRHNet
EP
.
g
.
e
EP
Stan
dard
i
ze in
a
way
Est ab lis h to o l
ch ec kl is t th at
en su res th is p ro cess
E
V
I
T
A
L
RE SK
RI
S
L
E
V
LE
e to
t
i
s
b
e
W
at e
n
i
m
e
s
dis
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
i n fo p p i n g
GIS Ma
Local Fire
Protection
Establish terms of
reference for products
and services
commissioned from
consultant to make
them understandable
and usable.
Ens u re co m p at ib ili ty
an d cr o ss referen ci n g o f al l
p o lic ies an d p lans
m ed ia”
w
e
n
“
f
o
e
s
u
Mak e
n out
io
t
a
m
r
fo
in
t
e
to g
b ac k .
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r
d
an
Evaluate risk
against existing
tolerance level
EP
(based on
comparable
risks) and
buildings
Modeling tools for
impact of
development
CRHNet
Develop checklist for
planner when
development
roles involved
bylaws triggered
codes
public consultation
etc...
Development /
Emergency
Management
Connection to
regional growth
strategies,
sustainability,
climate change,
Develop / provide
checklist for
developers listing what
reports
documents
assessments
etc
How is the bldg.
design to mitigate
risk?
Outline proposal
process and
requirements for
multiple areas of
expertise to engage
within you municipality
and provide crosstraining between
Planners and
emergency managers
Validate is 200 yr
adquate
Assess condition /
strength of
EP
Geotech Study
surrounding
EP
final design?
infrastructure
how it relates to
e.g. overpass
hazards -> does it
include mitigation
options?
EP
CRHNet
Process
description
t site
c
u
d
Co n i c
if
s p ec g at i o n s
ti
i n v es u i r ed
q
as r e
Affect on
surrounding
properties
Conduct a land-use
review
Is the application form
complete?
Initiate checklist /
tracking for application
internal department
external agencies
EP
EP
Co-ordinate and
identify all
information /
comments received
from referrals.
in
s
ap
g
fy
s
i
t
n
n
o
Id e l i c at i
ap p
nalysis
a
t
fi
e
n
e
b
t
s
o
C
E
T
US
TR
T
D
R
E
P
EX PO
P
U
S
N
RH
et
C
Other Hazards
(Fire, earthquake,
slide)
Review technological
studies
1. hydrology of creek flood risk
2. geo-tech of this site
and retaining wall
Overview from
planning dept.
narrow down
options based on
costs: impacts;
priorities; risk
ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
of
w
e
i
n
v
o
e
r
ed
a
s
t
a
c
b
u
d
n
nt
n
o
i
e
o
t
C lica opm
w
ap p d ev el b y l a
s
t h e r o v al
ap p
EP
(BLDG)
EP
HEALTH
ASSESSEMENT
EP
EP
Conduct an internal /
external referral
process based on
checklist
ORR
Evac routes
EP
EP
ility
b
a
t
s
l
a
r
Structu
firehall
Is report on bridge
EP
included?
Costs of bridge
upgrade?
Conduct an overall
cost / benefit
analysis
er
d
r
o
n
i
s
Plan
CHECKLIST
Evaluate growth in
service area
DFO
Establish context and
MoE
report back to
MoTI
t erdevelopers
a
ew
t
a
common languages
p r i v v i d er s
pro
EP
EP
Bylaw review
zoning / OCP
What info is required to
EP
decide?
What do we have?
What is missing?
EP
of
et
e
m
t
i
s
ie: doe
an
c
&
e
d
co
building
et PD
e
m
e
d
upgra
ds
standar
OTHER
S
OPTION
ud y
t
s
e
g
n
a
h
Climate C
EP
EP
Net
Conduct a review
based on hazard
mapping areas /
hazard risk
assessment / OCP –
DP areas
EP
EP
EP
EP
EP
to
CRH
blic
u
p
e
i n c l u d at i o n
lt
c onsu
1. Evaluate
Impact on
response
plans /
capabilities
EP
(Recognition)
Decision on how this
proposal affects future
hazard management
decisions in the hazard
zone.
EP
Can the hall be
renovated at a lo
wer
cost to correct th
e
health issues for
the
FF's in the short
term?
What
hazard
s
are
introd
uced
with th
e
CRHNet
EP
Centre for Natural
Hazard Research, SFU
Natural Resources Canada
Public Safety Canada
Justice Institute
of British Columbia
Pearces 2 Consulting
Consistent
integrated review
by stakeholders,
EP
QP reports
-> whole watershed
HRVA
-> functionality of hall
for response
-> life safety for
structure
Keynote on land-use decision practices
Breakout and panel discussions
to define best practices
Graphic record of contributions to planner's guide
WHO'S IDEA
Participants of September, 2009
Centre for Natural Hazards Research workshop
see www.sfu.ca/cnhr/workshops
Integrated Partnership for
Regional Emergency
Management
ncy
e
g
r
e
m
e
including
m an ag er s
Provide input to decision
makers in a
comprehensive way that
shows how input
(engineering,
environmental, social) has
been incorporated and
evaluated. ie:Remove the
black box that follows the
reams of “ professional
studies and opinions”
QP reports w. mit
igation
options for entire
watershed
- cost / benefit d
egree of
mitigation
- priority options
de
e
u
v
l
i
In c u l at
m
c u ac t s
p
m
i
What
warning
systems
are in
place?
Completed analysis
which would be
forwarded to applicant if
he wishes to proceed to
evaluation stage – which
could / would include
changes to the proposal
the report to Director of
Planning for evaluation /
options to decision
makers.
- Risk tolerance
criteria
EP
EP
Current worth of
Bldg
Read / Apply
OCP (Official
Community
Plan)
A s s u m e:
ing tion
d
l
i
Bu st r u c
c o n er i al
t
ma
WORKSHOP DESIGN
EP
EP
EP
Check Zoning
Consider
mitigation
alternatives and
techniques
Building
Code
et s er i n g
e
m ine
En g d ar d s
n
St a
SPR
Identify hazards
Subject
Probability
ranking
- Budget
nvolve subject matter
experts (SMEs)
EP
EP
EP
EP
Risk-based Land-use Decision Support Workshop
EP
Emergency +
Protective Services
t
c
e
j
o
r
p
How
n
i
h
t
i
w
fits
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
co
y
g
e
t
a
r
t
s
- response +
redundancy options
- structure priorities
CRHNet
Building a best practices guide for land-use decision makers in
support of improved disaster resilience
This panel is the outcome of breakout
3 of the workshop and represents the
participants contribution to a bestpractices guide to risk-based land-use
planning.
You are invited to add your comments
and best-practices to this poster, and
join an on-line discussion on building
disaster resilience through risk-based
land-use decision making. You can join
For further information:
http://www.sfu.ca/cnhr/workshops
Bert Struik
Geological Survey of Canada
Simon Fraser University
bert.struik@nrcan.gc.ca
604-375-6413
of
e
g
a
s
u
t
n
e
r
r
Cu
e
Fire Respons
Public
interests
influence
feedback
potential
on
s
t
s
c
n
A
o
i
t
a
l
u
Reg ws
a
l
By
?
Y
H
W
Evaluate
impacts and
risks
Per f o r m
HVRA
CRHNet
EP
EP
EP
"macro" issues what needs to happen
for any development
proposal?
Focus on mitigation
Consider costbenefits Equity
E
ab o x am p l e
m ea u t w h a : b e c l
che
n ? W t f i r e ear
c
k
h aza ed ? h at h s o u r c
m ak r d ? f i r s u c c es as b ee e
c o n e i t c l e e s af e ms ? w i l dn
s i d e ar w
f
h at at er i al i r e
r ed
s
h
m ak
in
i n g t h e d eas b ee ?
n
pro c
c
es s i s i o n
.
What
hazard
would lead
to
evacuation?
an Op p
d“
ort
m
u
h a ak i n n i t y
ap p p e
gt
pe
hin
n
”
a
o
do rs w nly gs
“ d e n ' t a h en
we
v el s s u
m
o
e
as p m
u s en t
ua
”
l
ty
li
i
b
a
i
L
-
Ask for more
information
EP
EP
Dec is io n
m ak in g n eed s
t o b e in t eg r at
ed
Professiona
ls,
public and
all need
to have inp
ut
Decision makers
decide
Hazard and
resilience
evaluation
process
Reconsider the
project
Ensure
financials /
funding is in
place and
conforms to
requirements
Federal and
Provincial and Local
government hazard
overview mapping
needs to be up
dated and then the
OCP land-use
designations need
to be evaluated
A procedure
or process to
rationalize
previous
land-use
decisions
Commission
hazard overview
review based on
new information
Establish
procedure to
handle situations
there's preexisting risk
Review OCPs
and DPAs
how to handle
existing
establish spheres
Verify Review
HRVA
deficiency?
has it changed
as a result of
the project?
Have to
start with
an adopted
risk criteria
to monitor
against
to d
t
n
r
m e haza e
e
l
e eo n – s c a p e ,
m
i
T u a t i la n d t im
l
r
e v an t h e o v e n a n d
o g e s t io
o
n
in g
la
c h a e g is m it t t s a ls e .
L p e r e n t im
r e mo v e r
i
u
reqnge
cha
Resilience
value per
dollar
invested?
Review
decision
criteria –
Review options
and soundness of
recommendation
(argument) by
Fire Dept.
EP
Did we
consider
alternatives?
ll e
a
g
re
w e o w le d
rst
s
fi
n
r
k ld e d ?
h o o lv e ,
in v t io n s n c y
na erge rs,
e m n a g e n it y
ma mmu
co
Who were
stakeholders
correct?
Are there any
new hazard /
risk reports
generated since
the decision?
previous and current
were all
hazards
incorporated?
were all
actors
included?
Checklist of
simple clear
questions
Criteria
Decision meet
existing standards?
Environmental
risk tolerance up
slope down slope
Integrated
evaluation team
Base decision on
criteria
TIME
- EVENT
FOR
Evaluate against
original options
pdf to council +
recommend
Review
- bylaw
- OCP
- envir
- hazards
Limited
opportunities for
monitoring of given
development under
the provincial
legislation
OCP review updated
Opportunity: Prov.
government can
amend legislation to
require local
government to base
DP to be based on
hazard mapping.
Prov. could establish
a density transfer
bank to reduce
development within
hazards.
EP
EP
EP
EEPP
$ to ensure
service
versus
$ to change
location
Format for
guide: Chapters
for different
types of hazards
with short time
frame to respond
to issues identified.
EP
EP
go back to square
one
EPEP
Consultation
with community
Fo r
t h e t h e ev
d ec al u
b e i s i o n at i o n
c r i t c l ea i t m o f
u s eer i a h a r w h a u s t
d to s [b t
d ec m ak e een ]
isio
n. the
Evaluate
the
OHS us
o
d
r
a
Haz rials
e
mat
P
EP
E
Make
recommendations
to decision
makers
EP
EP
Is there a process
where our tools /
guidelines /
standards can be
continuously
reviewed and
updated?
Who feeds info
back to the
planners? and
what is the
process?
Idea: Adopt
provincial legislation
that requires
retrofitting of
development at
time of sale.
Section 56 of the
community charter
requires building
inspectors to call for
site specific
geotechnical reports
at time of building
permit if a potential
hazards is identified.
This can address
changes in hazards on
the landscape in an
existing parcel.
Is a covenant
required to ensure
ongoing attention
to issues?
D ev elop
m aint en an ce
sc he d ule re qu ir ed
fo r ke y
co m po ne nt s
d ra in ag e
in sp ec tion s
fo un d at io ns
re ta in in g w all
et c…
Building
inspection
n
a
e
r
e
h
Is t
.
t
n
e
d
i
c
in
Mul t i- g uid e
s
b y v ar ian t
c o mmun it y
Trigger as to
when LUPs use
current
standards versus
old ones
Ra
pid
Da
ma
Ass
ge
ess
me
n
Conduct
joint
exercises
o
o
h
r
u
hbo
g
3 Nei
y
t
i
n
u
m
m
o
C
4
d
T o o ls
–
p r o v in c
ia
dat aba l
s
use I C e
I
sof t wa S
r
in p u t d e
a
* e v a lu t a
at e
Post r
eno.
respo
nse t
ime
- exer
cise
Community
vulnerability
evaluation
if
at
a
h
t
s
a he
e s
r
d
u h a e f t is
s
s
E nis k e a o it in
r c r u lt c t d y
in e s j e r e n c
r ro t u ge : n
p a p r ie io
c m e ns at
e la c u
p va n.
e la
p
f y rk
i
r o
e
v tw
s
e
y
n
a
w
f
o th
pa
g
n
i
d
l
i
1 Bu
2 S it e
Notify impacted
stakeholders: if
you find issues
related to their
plans.
H av e e xt e rio r
co n d it io n s
ch an g e d th at
im p ac ts th e site
o r vice ve rs a?
ie : su rr o u n d in g
ar e a
Verify plans used
to ensure
whatever
amendment is
required
On budget? On
schedule? if not
why not?Incident
data capture
I s t here a
need
t o d e v e lo p
new
p o lic ie s /
st andards?
or
m et hods of
assessm ent
Tool kit and proposals
d u c ati o n
e
c
li
b
u
p
e
id
v
Pr o
ks.
to in fo r m r e: r is
In c o r p o r at e
c o n s id er at io n
s
o f r eg io n al
g r o w t h p lan
EP
EP
BUILD MITIGATION NETWORK
Retrospective
evaluation for
purpose of
learning and
operational
improvement
Monitor decision
Monitor decision
incorporating HRVA
results into OCP
(Official Community
Plan)
EP
Build workshop template for your community
nd
o
yo
tt
be
en
r
g o ex m
fo i ve
nt ge
t y at
co na
n i eg r
a
m at e o r t u i n t ns .
e
c r p p ore u t i o
l
o
m
so
Understand
legislative
requirements,
Best
management
practices
Def in e Ris k
an d pr ov id e
st an dard fo r
ris k
as sess m en t
pr oc es s /
gu id el in es
ltiu
m
re
En s uar t m en t i n
d ep l v em en t
i n v o u at i o n
ev al es s
pro c
Workplace legislation
BUILD TOOLS TO CREATE GUIDES
Implement decision
Regional
Review and
Update
Big Job
with
Urban
losses to life /
property
- liability analysis
Promote planning for disaster resilience
Reduce disastrous infrastructure damage
re k
i
F ea
Br
Ed u c ate s taff re: an d
p u rp o s e, c o n ten t A
ap p li c ati o n o f HRV
res u lt s
Develop guidelines to
evaluate development
proposals
2 Despite challenges,
the existing fire hall is
sig.
sub-standard residents need fire
protection
HELP CREATE A PLANNER'S
GUIDEBOOK
New u e
d
s
d
r
a
h az o
t
en t
m
p
lo
d ev e o f f )
(r u n
Develop
policies and bylaws for new
and existing
developments
Overall risk analysis
as well as hazard
analysis
EP
to
in d h e l
a r iv id p e
t o e (? u a l n s u r
in g e t ) t d e c e t
a n g o o h e r a k e is io h a t
ns
co d n d o res n
o
u
u
a v ld t o u t c lt in
o id h a n o m g
ed ve es
e
.
be t ha s
en t
Question: What
good is
monitoring if
local gov't
does not have
jurisdiction to
require action?
Evaluate effectiveness of tools and decisions
Grants / funding
- flood protection $
from province
EP
- other
CRHNet
EP
IS YOUR LAND-USE PLAN
CREATING A DISASTER OR
BUILDING RESILIENCE?
- community
feedback
- open house to
elicit comments
from public
Critical to have
good collaboration
between the
decision makers
Solicit Public
Input
Evaluate alternatives
OCP
Reso ur ces
- st ak eh ol ders
- m on ey
- tim e
will the
et
Land-use planners, criticalinfrastructure owners and
managers, insurers, researchers
and practitioners of land-use
policy, and emergency managers.
Educate
Public
Ro ad
d es i g n
i ca
n
u
m
ion
Co m
t
a
c
Ed u
d
n
a
Che
nei ck w
ghb hol
our e
hoo
d
d r es s
d
a
d
n
a
y
f
i
t
n
Id e
rns
l i ab i l i t y c o n c e
w h en :
- i n d i v i d u al s
s
- communitie
m ak e
ns
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
r ec
N
A
FIN L
I
L
O
F
T sis
R
PO naly
a
O
it s
WHO SHOULD ATTENDED
Create residential task
force
Consider the trade-offs
A
I
C
A pp ro ac h
- st an dard
m et ho do lo gi es
rank in g
K
l
o
To
CRHN
t ions
EP
CRHNet
ory
t
a
l
u
Reg
es
n
i
l
e
Gu i d
EP
Conduct
multistakeholder
HRVA
Pro d u ct
- Map p in g
- Plan
- Pri o ri ti es
EP
Decision making is
iterative
Ri p ar i an
Zo n e
Tool kit
STANDARD
RISK
ASSESSME
NT
Risk
Competiti
on
Mitigation Options
- how can you just focus
on just this creek?
prioritize - bldg and
renovations 1st and then
mitigation
- dykes
- catchment basins
- on firehall site - side
effects from this
September 17, 2010
Simon Fraser University
Harbour Centre Campus
515 W. Hastings Street,
Vancouver, BC
8:30 am - 5:00 pm
Evaluate consequences
(
HVR
Terri
tory
comp
etiti
- Present many scenario to
counsel. (not just
architectural)
- cost / effectivenss
analysis
- all hazard analysis
(should be safe for many
analaysis)
- Eliminate undesirable
options focus on best
EP
options
- Is bridge at risk?
Workshop
Identify alternatives
and
k
s
Ri
,
d
r
a
lit y
i
z
b
a
a
H
er
n
l
u
nt
V
e
m
ess
s
s
A
A)
sk
i
R
h
lis
b
a
t
s
E
ce
n
a
r
To l e
nd
a
h
ar c
e
s
e
R
nd
u
o
r
g
B a ck
Test the integrity
of the
containment wall
Engage public
Public consultations ?
Council Presentations
on concept ?
EP
nce
a
r
e
l
o
t
k
h ris
Establis
criteria
arios
n
e
c
s
c
fi
ci
- for spe
Multidimensional
working group
Land-use Decision Support:
Reducing Risk from Hazards
Identify alternatives
Existing
infrastructure
Evaluate
vulnerability
Define the risk-based planning objectives
Create a strategic,
proactive timely
communications
plan to advise
critical audiences of
process and its
implications
Evaluate context for change
Monitor and Evaluate Decision:
Establish the decision criteria
Evaluate Development Proposal and Make Decision:
Establish proposal context
Receive the Development Proposal:
Establish proposal context
Establish Pre-Development Proposal Tools and Mechanisms:
Cr ea te
op po rt un it ie s fo r
kn ow le dg e
ex ch an ge be tw ee n
de pa rt m en ts ,
lo ca l go ve rn m en t,
pr ov in cial
ag en cies , th e
pu blic
Risk
e
c
n
a
r
e
Tol
tested ed +
r
o
t
i
n
(mo
t