Nguyen, B T H; Wong, P S P and Ahankoob, A (2025) Enhancing flood risk governance in Australia: Challenges, opportunities, and international insights. Construction Economics and Building, 25(3-4), pp. 254-271. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The substantial damage to homes and infrastructure in Australia rekindles the push for improved governance frameworks and adaptive policy measures. Coordinating efforts across federal, state, and local governments has proven challenging due to policy fragmentation, delayed responses, overlapping roles, and disparities in resource allocation. This study examines the strengths and weaknesses of Australia's flood risk management (FRM) policies through a qualitative document analysis approach, comparing governance structures with international best practices from countries such as Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. The findings highlight Australia's strengths in collaborative governance, targeted funding mechanisms, and advanced technical resources such as flood mapping and real-time monitoring systems. However, key weaknesses include governance fragmentation, inconsistent policy implementation, and insufficient support for rural and regional councils. The study proposes a more integrated and adaptive governance framework incorporating cross-jurisdictional coordination, enhanced stakeholder engagement, and sustainable investment strategies. The results contribute to policy discussions on flood risk governance by offering recommendations for strengthening institutional resilience and improving disaster preparedness. By addressing governance inefficiencies and adopting international best practices, Australia can develop a more cohesive and adaptive FRM system to mitigate future flood risks.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | climate adaptation; disaster management; flood risk governance; policy fragmentation; resilience |
| Index terms: | coordination, disaster management, disparity, policy measure, stakeholder engagement, best practice, funding, monitoring, Australia, risk governance, document analysis, governance, resource allocation, strengthening, policy implementation, mapping, climate adaptation, flood risk management, Japan, Netherlands, investment strategy, fragmentation, United States, local government, disaster preparedness |
| Subjects: | safety engineering, management, administrative law, control systems, community and social dimensions, business, resource management, data science, financial risk, Geography, spatial and geospatial analysis, structural engineering, social justice, climate science, policy studies, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Ethics, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here