Home / RBP / Risk based planning / A toolbox / Risk-based planning approach and steps / Step 5 - Assessment and modification

Step 5 - Assessment and modification

Step 5 Monitor & Evaluate Risk analysis tasks Risk Communication tasks

While evaluation and monitoring has taken place throughout, at this final stage the outcomes of the process and the process itself are assessed to determine any further necessary actions.

1. Evaluate risk –reduction effectiveness i.e. risks are not increased.

2. Plan change/revisit strategy if required to meet risk reduction objectives.

1. Evaluate acceptance of control options.

2. Evaluate acceptance of residual risks.

3. Evaluate communication and engagement strategy.

4. Communicate with stakeholders and community if policy needs amending to achieve risk reduction objectives.

Full table Steps 1-5

While this is listed as a final step, monitoring and evaluation are an integral component of the risk-based planning approach and occur throughout the entire process. Two key questions to be asked are:

  • Are people agreeable with mitigation options, residual risks and long term outcomes?
  • Did the communication and engagement strategy meet their needs?

There are four areas that require attention in this step

1. Evaluate risk–reduction effectiveness

When evaluating the effectiveness of risk reduction measures, consideration should be given to the effects of the measures on the receiving environment. For example, a sea wall may have been installed to reduce coastal erosion, but the construction of this wall has resulted in the loss of a beach. The following questions can provide a framework for considering the effectiveness of risk reduction measures:

  • Are the effects continuous or short term?
  • Are the effects sustainable?
  • Is it cost effective, or could the same results be achieved at lower cost by other means?
  • What are the environmental impacts of the risk reduction?

2. Evaluate acceptance of mitigation options

The following questions can provide a framework for evaluation of the acceptance of the mitigation options that may have been implemented to reduce the risks from natural hazards.

  • Have mitigation measures been accepted by local stakeholders?
  • What are the social, environmental, and economic impacts?
  • Are the risks and benefits distributed fairly?

3. Evaluate acceptance of residual risks

The following questions can provide a framework for evaluation of the acceptance of the residual risks that exist following the installation of the mitigation options.

  • Are residual risks accepted by local stakeholders?
  • Have the mitigation options introduced new risks?
  • Have the residual risk changed overtime?

4. Evaluate communication and engagement strategy

It is important to consider at all stages of the risk-based approach whether new stakeholders and/or affected parties whose views should be included, have emerged as a result of discussions, meetings, and information exchange steps. This may require a revisiting of the stakeholder analysis and decisions on how to involve these new parties in further communications.

It is also important to assess whether the engagement approach is satisfactorily meeting the initial goals agreed on in step 1.[see Building an Engagement Strategy – see Bay of Plenty workshop example]. For instance the initial goals for the communication and engagement may include:

1. Building awareness of hazards and their impact on land use

2. Ascertaining public appetite for expenditure on risk mitigation

3. Gaining public support for Council efforts in risk management

On-going monitoring of the achievement of these goals (e.g., feedback at meetings, formal post-workshop evaluations, phone polling, or discussions with community leaders) enables suitable adjustments to be made to further communication and engagement efforts.