Resilient housing policies: A framework for evaluation

The purpose of this report is to understand how selected resilience programs unfold (within their own physical, financial, social and emotional constraints), gather lessons learned and expand the body of knowledge around post-program resilience. This report is the first in a series of work packages in the Evaluating the Resilient Homes Fund research project.

This report reviews seven selected programs from which to draw comparative themes that can be applied to evaluating the Resilient Homes Fund in Australia. The following were selected because of their relevance to some of the key issues for Australian flood resilience programs:

a) Grantham Relocation Policy (Australia)

b) Brisbane: Flood Resilient Homes Program (Australia)

c) Christchurch Residential Red Zone (New Zealand)

d) Flood Re’s Build Back Better (UK)

e) The State of North Carolina: 1990s hurricane and storm response (USA)

f) The State of New Jersey: Superstorm Sandy (USA)

g) Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Program (USA)

While these programs are all similar in that homeowner participation has been voluntary, they differ in several ways, including diversity of population; housing stock; presenting conditions of hazard; and scale and complexity. The programs were analysed from the perspective of policy design and delivery rather than specific structural or hazard features to develop a framework for evaluating the key enablers and trade-offs involved in implementing government-sponsored resilience programs. The framework facilitates the development of the following interlinked indicators for evaluating outcomes:

1. Evaluating measures taken against relevant criteria A key outcome is evaluating how many properties were made more resilient to the identified hazard. These interventions alone will not indicate successful outcomes unless measured against future hazards. Therefore, maintaining data provides an opportunity to enable evaluation against relevant criteria.
2. Establishing a basis for future enabling policy mechanisms Any specific resilience program is likely to be one in a series of government interventions to improve the resilience of housing stock, communities and regions. Hence, the outcome of any specific intervention should be understood as cumulatively feeding into subsequent programs. Careful collection and maintenance of data and knowledge is critical to enable the (re)activation of a future resilience policy.
3. Shifting from post-disaster recovery to pre-disaster mitigation Most cases were implemented in a post-disaster phase, during which the ability to mobilise people to engage in the program is complexified by the disaster itself. A shift to pre-disaster mitigation provides time to test resilience materials and to work with property owners on using those materials. Consistent with the second outcome of establishing enabling mechanisms, the data and knowledge developed during recovery is useful in shifting the resilience program toward a pre-disaster mitigation phase – concurrently facilitating societal resilience.
4. Establishing a multi-dimensional approach to resilience outcomes Due to variations in properties, population and demographics and trade-offs in collective or individual approaches, eligibility and equity criteria, there is no ‘one size fits all’ or ‘best’ approach for resilience programs. Some homeowners will need longer and more targeted support to develop resilience than others. Therefore, a multi-dimensional approach to resilience that transcends solely physical changes to properties is needed to support people with physical, financial, emotional and social dimensions of resilience.

In conclusion, we propose eight future considerations for designing and implementing resilience programs.

1. Continuing policy examples of how continuing policy can support a timely and expanded response to a new disaster are insightful in developing a cumulative approach to disaster resilience.
2. Open access to insurance data where a government-based insurance scheme was in place, this supported access to data and knowledge and provided an initial set of procedures and funding for rolling out the resilience programs in our cases.
3. Consider collective approaches where there is strong data from which to identify the target population.
4. Consider individual approaches when the target population is varied and hard to identify.
5. Broad eligibility criteria based on exposure to hazards rather than any socioeconomic or demographic characteristics can be considered when there is an aim to increase the baseline of resilience within a region and ensure equality of access to a program.
6. Equity criteria can make eligibility more targeted towards the needs of those who might otherwise struggle to access a resilience program.
7. Incentives may mobilise populations to either move out of high-risk locations or improve their current home's resilience to weather events.
8. Support should be embedded in program design and made available to homeowners in a manner that accommodates vulnerabilities and limitations in access to the Internet, email and mobile phones.