Eco-geomorphology is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of river systems that integrates hydrology, fluvial geomorphology and ecology. This approach facilitates a new understanding of river systems by bridging dominant paradigms from individual disciplines. Each discipline views river systems from a spatial and temporal perspective, but we suggest that one of the main impediments to further expansion of intterdisciplinary study is the mismatch of scales between disciplines. A hierarchical and integrative framework for interdisciplinary study is required and would overcomes scale issues by matching a problem with a river system process to identify causal explanations at the correct spatial and temporal scales. We use the example of enviromnental flows to demonstrate the utility of an eco-geomorphological approach for identification of characteristic scales of hydrological, geomorphological and ecological influence in the Condamine-Balonne River.

Interpretation of flood plain sedimentation often relies on qualitative evaluations. Quantitative analysis is often made difficult by large amounts of data generated through an array of physical and chemical measurements of sediment character. As such, analysis of sediment character is mostly focused on bivariate comparisons. This paper illustrates the utility of multivariate statistical techniques in the interpretation of flood plain sedimentation, which consider multiple factors simultaneously. Seventeen sediment characteristics were used to distinguish between groups of sediment samples collected from the lower Balonne flood plain in southwest Queensland, Australia. Sediment samples were analysed in a hierarchical manner according to a nested design of river, zone and geomorphic unit scales. The analyses demonstrated differences in sediment character at the river scale. Clear patterns in sediment character were noted at the zone and geomorphic units scales, although these were river-specific. Techniques used in this study can rapidly divide the flood plain into units based on similarities in sediment character, and can provide greater quantitative interpretations of flood plain sedimentation.

Many environmental flow approaches calculate hydrological indicators on an annual or daily basis and do not consider the multiple scales of a rivers' hydrological character. However, hydrologic processes operate within a temporal and spatial dimension, in accordance with multidimensional and hierarchical views of river systems. This study investigates spatial and temporal patterns of the hydrological character of a large river system, and examines the impact of water-resource development on these patterns. Over 300 regime, history and pulse-scale flow variables have been calculated from simulated discharge data representing 'reference' and 'current' water-resource development scenarios. Multivariate statistical analyses are used to identify measurement nodes with similar hydrological character and to determine the association between different temporal scale flow variables and groups of nodes. Six spatial hydrological zones are identified in the Condamine–Balonne River, Australia. These hydrological zones are found to have become homogenized with water-resource development. Different temporal scales of flow variables are related to the different hydrological zones, and to water-resource development scenarios. Thus, the temporal dimension of hydrological character is embedded within a spatial dimension of river zonation. Both dimensions should be considered in a hierarchical context, and environmental flow restoration targets may need to be set for each dimension of a river system.

Because of their size and social impact, the floods of February and March 2000 attracted the attention of the world. In Kruger National Park, flooding of the Sabie and Letaba Rivers caused significant damage to park infrastructure. Damage to bridges, buildings and roads has since been repaired, but what were the effects of the flood on river ecosystems?

Selection of appropriate scales of measurement is fundamental to the interpretation and understanding of river systems. Principles of hierarchy theory can be used to guide the selection of scales of measurement in stream ecological studies because hierarchy incorporates relational links between nested levels. However, the scales of measurement used in macroinvertebrate distribution studies are not cast strongly into a hierarchical context. Scales are usually nested spatially, in a logical manner, but are not accompanied by an explanation of underlying relational links among scales. We describe 2 approaches to the selection of scales of measurement that incorporate hierarchical principles. The parallel hierarchy approach uses a hierarchy of river system organization, derived from the parallel discipline of fluvial geomorphology, to identify scales of measurement that may correspond with the distribution of macroinvertebrates. The self-emergence approach circumvents any a priori imposition of scales of measurement and allows scales to self-emerge from a data set. The use of these approaches shifts focus onto the detection of levels of hierarchical organization, or holons, and may advance our understanding of river ecosystems by elucidating the way in which levels of ecological and physical organization are juxtaposed within the river system.

Despite the demonstrated utility of the Australian River Assessment Scheme (AUSRIVAS) to provide national-scale information on the biological condition of rivers, there is no commensurate scheme that can provide standardised information on physical habitat. Existing habitat assessment methods are not suitable for implementation on a national scale, so we present a new habitat assessment protocol that incorporates favorable elements of existing methods. Habitat Predictive Modelling forms the basis for the protocol because it can predict the occurrence of local-scale features from large-scale data, uses the reference condition concept, can be modified to incorporate a range of biologically and geomorphologically relevant variables, and employs a rapid survey approach. However, the protocol has been augmented with geomorphological variables and incorporates principles of hierarchy and geomorphological river zonation. There are four sequential components to the implementation of the protocol: reference site selection, data collection, predictive model construction and assessment of test sites using the predictive models. Once implemented, the habitat assessment protocol will provide a standardised tool for the assessment of river habitat condition at a variety of governance levels.

Although there is evidence that passive surveillance services provided by the public can be very valuable (in terms of both reduced program costs and increased probability of success in managing pests) little is known about the return on investment for this type of expenditure.

Enabling passive surveillance requires community information campaigns and incentive schemes. This takes funds away from other activities, so it is important to estimate the value of these campaigns relative to other alternatives, such as increasing active (structured) surveillance.

This project contributes towards an understanding of the value of passive surveillance provided by members of the community using a case study: the red imported fire ant (RIFA) eradication program in Brisbane. The RIFA program, managed by Biosecurity Queensland Control Centre (BQCC), is well documented. BQCC has an intense public awareness program with multiple activities, including broad and targeted coverage of distinct community groups and zones within the Brisbane area. We have combined data on community engagement events, reports from the public and nest detections recorded by BQCC, with census data to estimate relationships between demographic characteristics of an area and the likelihood that residents from that area will report encounters with RIFA.

In this report we present background information and hypotheses regarding the role of community surveillance in the management of biological invasions. This is followed by details of the datasets used and results of a number of analyses. We show the importance of the data clean-up process and identify the limitations that arise when a database designed primarily to track public reports is used for spatio-temporal analyses where accurate dating of events is important.

We also estimate the return on investment in community engagement in terms of the savings in structured-search costs it brings. This estimate uses probability maps to calculate the amount of active search that would have been required to detect all the known ant colonies in the period 2006-2010 if passive surveillance would not have been available. Assuming active search costs $400/ha we obtain a value of $52 million return per $1 million invested in community engagement.

Resilient communities are better able to anticipate hazards, withstand adversity, reduce losses and recover from natural hazard events. The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index is a system of indicators that will assess and report the resilience of Australian communities to natural hazards.

What is the Problem?
In 2010, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) adopted resilience as one of the key guiding principles for making the nation safer. The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Australian Government 2011) outlines how Australia should aim to improve social and community resilience with the view that resilient communities are in a much better position to withstand adversity and to recover more quickly from extreme events. The recent Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 also uses resilience as a key concept and calls for a people centred, multi-hazard, multi-sectoral approach to disaster risk reduction. As such each tier of government, emergency services and related NGOs have a distinct need to be able assess and monitor the ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters as well as a clear baseline condition from which to measure progress.
Why is it Important?
Society has always been susceptible to extreme events. While the occurrence of these events generally cannot be prevented; the risks can often be minimised and the impacts on affected populations and property reduced. For people and communities, the capacity to cope with, adapt to, learn from, and where needed transform behaviour and social structures in response to an event and its aftermath all reduce the impact of the disaster (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008) and can broadly be considered resilience. Improving resilience at various scales and thereby reducing the effects of natural hazards has increasingly become a key goal of governments, organisations and communities within Australia and internationally.
How are we going to solve it?
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index project intends to produce a spatial representation of the current state of disaster resilience across Australia. The index will be composed of multiple levels of information that can be reported separately and represented as colour-coded maps where each point will have a corresponding set of information about natural hazard resilience. Spatially explicit capture of data (i.e. in a Geographical Information System) will facilitate seamless integration with other types of information and mapping and allow the use of the project outcomes in the preparation, prevention and recovery spheres. Additionally, the index and indicators will be drawn together as a State of Disaster Resilience Report which will interpret resilience at multiple levels and highlight hotspots of high and low elements of natural hazard resilience.

Natural hazard management policy directions in Australia – and indeed internationally – are increasingly being aligned to ideas of resilience. There are many definitions of resilience in relation to natural hazards within a contested academic discourse (Klein et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004; Boin et al., 2010; Tierney, 2014). Broadly speaking, resilience to natural hazards is the ability of individuals and communities to cope with disturbances or changes and to maintain adaptive behaviour (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008). Building resilience to natural hazards requires the capacity to cope with the event and its aftermath, as well as the capacity to learn about hazard risks, change behaviour, transform institutions and adapt to a changing environment (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008). The shift from a risk-based approach to managing natural hazards towards ideas of disaster resilience reflects the uncertainty associated with predicting the location and impacts of natural hazard events, the inevitability of natural hazard events, and the uncertainty of future natural hazard risks in a changing climate and population.
The emergency management community sits at the forefront of operationalizing ideas of disaster resilience. Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience champions a resilience based approach to the challenges posed by natural hazards. Emergency management and other government agencies involved in hazard management are also adopting principles of natural hazard resilience in policies, strategic planning and community engagement (e.g. Queensland Reconstruction Authority, 2012). It is in light of the need to operationalize the concept of disaster resilience that we are developing the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.
The index is a tool for assessing the resilience of communities to natural hazards at a large scale. It is designed specifically to assess resilience to natural hazards – not derived for another purpose then modified to suit a resilience focus. The assessment inputs in several ways to macro-level policy, strategic planning, community planning and community engagement activities at National, State and local government levels. First, it is a snapshot of the current state of natural hazard resilience at a national scale. Second, it is a layer of information for use in strategic policy development and planning. Third, it provides a benchmark against which to assess future change in resilience to natural hazards. Understanding resilience strengths and weaknesses will help communities, governments and organizations to build the capacities needed for living with natural hazards.
There are two principal approaches to assessing disaster resilience using an index. Bottom-up approaches are locally based and locally driven and are qualitative self-assessments of disaster resilience (Committee on Measures of Community Resilience, 2015). Bottom-up approaches survey individuals or communities using a scorecard consisting of indicators of disaster resilience such as preparation, exposure to specific hazards, community resources and communication (e.g. Arbon, 2014). In contrast, top-down approaches are often intended for use at broad scales by an oversight body (Committee on Measures of Community Resilience, 2015) and use secondary spatial sources such as census data to quantitatively derive indicators that describe the inherent characteristics of a community that contribute to disaster resilience (Cutter et al., 2010). It is important to align the approach used with the purpose of the resilience assessment because bottom-up and top-down approaches both have a point of spatial or conceptual limitation beyond which conclusions about resilience are no longer valid. A framework that outlines the philosophical underpinnings of a project, linked to the mechanisms used to collect and interpret data, can help to scope and define relevant assessment approaches. A framework is an important tool for a resilience assessment because it defines the boundaries - the why, what and how - around the evidence that we use to derive our assessment of natural hazard resilience.
In this document we set out the framework for the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index. The framework outlines the conceptual underpinnings of our approach – why we are doing what we are doing – then explains what we will assess about resilience using data aligned to our resilience philosophy. We then briefly explain how we intend to measure these data and the indicators that we will collect to form the index.

What is the Problem?
In 2010, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) adopted resilience as one of the key guiding principles for making the nation safer. The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Australian Government 2011) outlines how Australia should aim to improve social and community resilience with the view that resilient communities are in a much better position to withstand adversity and to recover more quickly from extreme events. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 also uses resilience as a key concept and calls for a people centred, multi-hazard, multi-sectoral approach to disaster risk reduction. As such each tier of government, emergency services and related NGOs have a distinct need to be able assess and monitor the ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters as well as a clear baseline condition from which to measure progress.
Why is it Important?
Society has always been susceptible to extreme events. While the occurrence of these events generally cannot be prevented; the risks can often be minimised and the impacts on affected populations and property reduced. For people and communities, the capacity to cope with, adapt to, learn from, and where needed transform behaviour and social structures in response to an event and its aftermath all reduce the impact of the disaster and can broadly be considered resilience. Improving resilience and thereby reducing the effects of natural hazards has increasingly become a key goal of governments, organisations and communities within Australia and internationally.
How are we going to solve it?
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index project will produce a spatial representation of the current state of disaster resilience across Australia. The index will be composed of multiple levels of information that can be reported separately and represented as colour-coded maps where each point will have a corresponding set of information about natural hazard resilience. Spatially explicit capture of data will facilitate seamless integration of the project outcomes with other types of information. The index and indicators will also be drawn together as a State of Disaster Resilience Report which will interpret resilience at multiple levels and highlight hotspots of high and low elements of natural hazard resilience.

The Australian natural disaster resilience index (ANDRI) will assess the state of disaster resilience in Australia.

The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index is an assessment of disaster resilience at a large, all-of-nation scale. It is the first national snapshot of the capacity for community resilience to natural hazards.
The conceptual model outlining the reasoning and design of the index has been reported previously in two publications:
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index: Milestone report on conceptual framework and indicator approach. Available from:
http://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/resilient-people-infrastructure-andinstitutions/251
An academic manuscript titled “Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: a conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities”. This is available in open access from the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
This report overviews the indicators being used in the index, including their justification, source and measurement level. Once the data for all indicators have been collected and compiled, statistical analysis will then commence to compute the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index.

Perception of the risks of natural hazards is considered to be one of the precursors of desirable behaviors of mitigation, preparation, and resilience. However, the processes of risk perception are complex and are likely related to underlying cognitive factors associated with information processing. Cultural worldview theory suggests that people actively choose what to fear (and how much to fear it) in order to support their ways of life (Kahan, 2012). Aspects of these choices may include prioritizing public vs. private interests, choice vs. control, and differing levels of belief and/or adherence to egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism, and communitarianism. To assess whether and how cultural worldviews relate to perceptions of risk to natural hazards we recruited 503 residents of New South Wales (stratified between urban and regional areas) who completed a cultural worldview questionnaire and a new questionnaire developed by the researchers to assess four aspects of natural hazards: 1) perceptions of the risk of natural hazards; 2) perceptions of control over natural hazards; 3) perceptions of responsibility for natural hazard preparation and outcome; and 4) trust in different sources of information about natural hazards. Results indicated significant but varying relationships among cultural cognition types (i.e., egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism, communitarianism) and the four aspects of natural hazard risk perception. Some consistency was found regarding how cultural cognition types predicted risk perception across four different types of natural hazards (bushfire, flood, severe thunderstorm, earthquake) but this also varied by geographical location. Understanding the influence of cultural worldviews on attitudes toward natural hazards might lead to community engagement messages orientated to the views of egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism, and communitarianism.

Australia faces increasing losses from natural hazard events. Resilient communities will be better able to anticipate hazards, withstand adversity, reduce losses and adapt and learn in a changing environment. The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index is a system to assess and report the resilience of Australian communities to natural hazards.

The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index (ANDRI) is Australia's first national-scale standardised snapshot of disaster resilience. Because of its national extent, the ANDRI takes a top-down approach using indicators derived from secondary data. The ANDRI has a hierarchical design based on coping and adaptive capacities representing the potential for disaster resilience in Australian communities. Coping capacity is the means by which people or organizations use available resources, skills and opportunities to face adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster. Adaptive capacity is the arrangements and processes that enable adjustment through learning, adaptation and transformation. Coping capacity is divided into themes of social character, economic capital, infrastructure and planning, emergency services, community capital and information and engagement. Adaptive capacity is divided into themes of governance, policy and leadership and social and community engagement. Indicators are collected to determine the status of each theme. This paper will present a preliminary assessment of the state of disaster resilience in Australia, and the spatial distribution of disaster resilience across Australia. We then outline the framing of the assessment outcomes as areas of strength and opportunities for enhancing the capacities for disaster resilience in Australian communities. The utilisation of the ANDRI into emergency management agency programs and tools will also be discussed.

What is the Problem?
In 2010, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) adopted resilience as one of the key guiding principles for making the nation safer. The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Australian Government 2011) outlines how Australia should aim to improve social and community resilience with the view that resilient communities are in a much better position to withstand adversity and to recover more quickly from extreme events. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 also uses resilience as a key concept and calls for a people centred, multi-hazard, multi-sectoral approach to disaster risk reduction. As such each tier of government, emergency services and related NGOs have a distinct need to be able assess and monitor the ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters as well as a clear baseline condition from which to measure progress.
Why is it Important?
Society has always been susceptible to extreme events. While the occurrence of these events generally cannot be prevented; the risks can often be minimised and the impacts on affected populations and property reduced. For people and communities, the capacity to cope with, adapt to, learn from, and where needed transform behaviour and social structures in response to an event and its aftermath all reduce the impact of the disaster and can broadly be considered resilience. Improving resilience and thereby reducing the effects of natural hazards has increasingly become a key goal of governments, organisations and communities within Australia and internationally.
How are we going to solve it?
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index project will produce a spatial representation of the current state of disaster resilience across Australia. The index will be composed of multiple levels of information that can be reported separately and represented as colour-coded maps where each point will have a corresponding set of information about natural hazard resilience. Spatially explicit capture of data will facilitate seamless integration of the project outcomes with other types of information. The index and indicators will also be drawn together as a State of Disaster Resilience Report which will interpret resilience at multiple levels and highlight hotspots of high and low elements of natural hazard resilience.

Our research focuses on how to empower and recognize traditional water knowledge systems. With this in mind, we questioned how best we could share our collective conversation about the relationship with water from three different perspectives: an Indigenous perspective, a depth-psychology perspective and a stewardship perspective. As we explored our relationship and synergies in water knowledge systems, we realized that adopting an Indigenous research framework utilizing the conversational method was the best way to share our collective story. We each bring particular cultural and disciplinary approaches to water knowledge system issues. Dr Lorina Barker is a Wangkumara and Muruwari woman from northwest NSW and emphasizes the many examples where Aboriginal Elders are conveying traditional Indigenous water knowledge to government agencies and the wider public, to ensure the cultural, spiritual, social and emotional wellbeing of people, place and the environment. There are many complex reasons why Elders are sharing these water stories, and why they have chosen multimedia as the vehicle for that transmission. The inclusion of traditional water knowledge in water governance recognizes the importance of Indigenous water knowledges. Dr Patricia Please considers the questions at the centre of this project from the perspective of public engagement with, and participation in, natural resource management, using an integrated holistic approach that accommodates the importance of empathy, affect-emotion and eco-psychology. Dr Jacqueline Williams explores environmental stewardship from an enviro-social perspective, as a white Australian rural landholder and as an environmental scientist. She identified globalization as one of the main barriers to the recognition of traditional water knowledge systems, suggesting it is best understood as another wave of colonization. Our chapter is presented in the form of a narrative where each author presents their perspectives through an on-going dialogue from different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds.

Natural hazard management policy directions in Australia – and indeed internationally – are increasingly being aligned to ideas of resilience. However, the definition and conceptualization of resilience in relation to natural hazards is keenly contested within academic literature (Klein et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004; Boin et al., 2010; Tierney, 2014). Broadly speaking, resilience to natural hazards is the ability of individuals and communities to cope with disturbances or changes and to maintain adaptive behaviour (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008). Building resilience to natural hazards requires the capacity to cope with the event and its aftermath, as well as the capacity to learn about hazard risks, change behaviour, transform institutions and adapt to a changing environment (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008).
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index is a tool for assessing the resilience of communities to natural hazards at a large scale. Using a top down approach, the assessment will provide input to macro-level policy, strategic planning, community planning and community engagement activities at National, State and local government levels. First, it is a snapshot of the current state of natural hazard resilience at a national scale. Second, it is a layer of information for use in strategic policy development and planning. Third, it provides a benchmark against which to assess future change in resilience to natural hazards. Understanding resilience strengths and weaknesses will help communities, governments and organizations to build the capacities needed for living with natural hazards.
Design of the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index
The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index will assess resilience based on two sets of capacities – coping capacity and adaptive capacity. We have used a hierarchical structure for the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index. Indicators provide the data for a theme – together the indicators measure the status of the theme. We collected approximately 90 indicators across the eight coping and adaptive capacity themes. Indicators were collected at Statistical Area 2 (SA2) resolution where possible.
Results of the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index
The results and initial trends in the eight themes of the Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index are presented below. It should be noted that these interpretations and maps are subject to further change as the State of Disaster Resilience Report is developed. What is presented here is an overview of the pattern of index values. In all maps, lower index values in brown represent lower disaster resilience and higher index values in green represent higher disaster resilience. Each of the sections is an SA2 division of the ABS.