2021-10-08 SM - Item 1 - Attachment 1 - Draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan

           Criteria          Criteria Description
                             Monetary costs to build/implement an adaptation option (further
           Cost              detailed studies to confirm costs may be required), either by
                             Council or private land owners
                             Whether an adaptation option will have adverse impacts on
           Environmental
                             environmental values e.g. Matters of State Environmental
           Impact
                             Significance
                             Whether an adaptation option will have adverse impacts on other
           Social Impact     social values or is likely to have community support e.g. access,
                             amenity, property values
           Reversible/       Whether an option is able to be ‘reversed’ or adapted to cater for
           adaptable         future needs
                             Whether an option is technically feasible (i.e. is effective in
                             mitigating the risk and is implementable)
                             Whether an option is able to be readily approved (i.e. is
           Effectiveness
                             consistent with current planning policy or legislative requirements)
                             Whether an option provides a long-term solution to the coastal
                             hazard risk, or is suitable for use as an interim option
                                Table 3 - Adaptation options assessment criteria



                                             Reference Box #3

                                      Assessing adaptation options

 Using the criteria set out in Table to score each option, a “traffic light” system was then used to group
 the options for deliberation as follows:

        Proceed (‘GO’): an option is considered suitable with no other adverse impacts, and requires no
         further development (i.e. studies, design etc). These could also be defined as “No Regrets”
         options
        Investigate Further (‘SLOW’): an option may be suitable, but should be subject to further
         detailed assessment at specific locations e.g. cost-benefit analysis or lot-scale surveys
        Unfeasible (‘STOP’): an option is not considered suitable at a location and may not be
         considered for further detailed analysis.


Having gathered information on potential adaptation options, an important next step in the project
was to undertake more detailed and rigorous socio-economic analyses (known as a cost-benefit
analysis) of the short-listed options using a range of social, environmental and economic criteria,
data and other information. This component was critical to informing the selection of the adaptation
actions presented in this plan.

For the most part, options included for this final stage of analysis were those that scored highly
within the ‘Investigate Further’ category. In addition, based on feedback from Council staff and the
community, it was determined that a number of options rated as ‘Unfeasible’ should also be
included to provide greater certainty and confidence that these actions should not form part of a
coastal hazards adaptation plan for Noosa.




Noosa Council – Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan                                                      Page 24