Can a relational cross-scalar approach to management improve environmental disaster responses? A case study of an unprecedented flood in New South Wales, Australia

ABSTRACT

Human societies face planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Conventional command-and-control approaches to manage these existential challenges have failed due to limited comprehension of relationships in social-ecological systems. To address this problem, we study the complex case of the disaster response to unprecedented floods in the Northern Rivers Region, New South Wales, Australia, in 2022. We apply a novel relational-systems model that identifies management structures, processes, functions and contents interacting at and across scales. The model helps identify the root causes in the inadequate disaster response that ensued in the Northern Rivers Region flooding. The root causes are a lack of systems-thinking competence, poor collaborative capacity, vulnerabilities in environmental management and deficient governance systems. The relational complexity concepts of self-organisation and socio-cultural organisation may further help explain variation in response to disasters in different socio-ecological contexts. Such understanding can inform individual and collective environmental action.

KEYWORDS:

• Environmental disaster
• relationality
• cross-scalar
• complex social-ecological systems
• Australian flooding

1. Introduction to the problem

In the third decade of the twenty-first century, the complex problem of managing socio-ecological disasters resulting from global environmental change could not be more pressing or important. Processes such as climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution comprise existential threats to people, ecosystems and planetary systems (Steffen et al. 2015). Disaster events, as defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2016), are increasing in frequency, extent and severity (e.g. Satherley and May 2022; Summers et al. 2022). In this article, we focus on the challenge of managing risks associated with the increasing frequency of deadly and costly flood disasters (Cook 2023; O’Kane and Fuller 2022).

Command-and-control management systems assume that the managers act as if the management outcome is predictable before the activity of managing plays out. Current command-and-control management systems have largely been inadequate in addressing socio-ecological disasters (e.g. Alves et al. 2020; Burrel, Davar, and Hughes 2007; Center for Disaster Philanthropy 2023; Gain, Ashik-Ur-Rahman, and Vafeidis 2019; Koshy 2022; Pour et al. 2020), especially their impacts on the poor (Douglas et al. 2008; Tauhid and Zawani 2018). Inadequacies in command-and-control management can be observed at the individual level (e.g. lack of knowledge, value conflicts, unexpected emotional responses), organisational level (e.g. limited resources, risks of uncertainty, poor leadership, reductionist decision-making) and governmental level (e.g. lack of support of local government by state and federal government, disengagement with community values, beliefs or aspirations) (e.g. Dow, Berkhout, and Preston 2013; Measham et al. 2011; Siebentritt 2016). Consequences of inadequate management systems include excessive economic costs associated with compliance and enforcement of regulations, extensive litigation often associated with regulatory approaches and management decisions of regulatory agencies, and conflicts between stakeholders (Plummer and Armitage 2010).

In response to the limits of command-and-control systems, several authors propose a transition to adaptive and transformative management systems (Armitage and Plummer 2010; Burrel, Davar, and Hughes 2007; Lejano 2019; Plummer and Armitage 2010). It has been suggested that more effective management of disaster risks benefits from resilience thinking (Benson and Garmestani 2011), the use of adaptive management (Butler et al. 2021; Folke et al. 2005; Schoeman, Allan, and Finlayson 2019) and collaborative governance (Koontz et al. 2010; Ulibarri et al. 2023).

Adaptive management and resilience thinking have been applied to floods (e.g. Burger, Kennedy, and Crooks 2021; Mai et al. 2020), including the existential threats of sea level rise for small islands (e.g. Talubo, Morse, and Saroj 2022). Research shows that flood disaster resilience is affected by the social capital of communities (Abunyewah et al. 2023; Hochrainer-Stigler et al. 2021) and appear to be non-linear (Hochrainer-Stigler et al. 2021), often emerging from the disaster itself (Ntontis et al. 2020).

We add to this literature by using a relational-systems approach to identify inadequacies in responses to flooding events, taking unprecedented floods in the Northern Rivers Region (NRR) of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in 2022 as an empirical case study. This case was chosen because of its recentness, unprecedented severity and availability of data about the management response. We consider relationships within and between local, subnational and national levels across government, business and community management structures, processes, functions and contents. We use the results of this analysis to suggest potential improvements in the management of socio-ecological disasters. We first describe the relational-systems model. We then describe our case study and related management responses. We then apply our model to analyse these responses. Finally, we assess the utility of the model.

2. A relational systems model and framework

Our relational model (Figure 1) offers a dynamic perspective on hierarchical control in the relational, cross-scalar interplay of predictable and unpredictable phenomena (Allen et al. 2014). We adopt a systems-thinking approach in using the term ‘relational’ to refer to the way persons or things are mutually connected to other persons and things in ways that ensure that changes in one part of a relation affect all other parts of that relation (Ackoff 1994; Redman and Wiek 2021). The model presents polycentric governance (Vij 2023) as a system of diverse communities and private and public authorities with overlapping responsibilities. They interact in complex and ever-changing ways, sustaining capacities for individual liberty, group autonomy and community self-governance (McGinnis 2016).

Figure 1. Management organisation: system components, context and outcomes.

Our approach is influenced by the work of Elinor Ostrom (e.g. Gain, Ashik-Ur-Rahman, and Vafeidis 2019; Ostrom 2009). Therefore, our model (Figure 1) accommodates complexity in three ways. First, it recognises the interplay of both self-organisation and sociocultural organisation. Second, it distinguishes between four different organisational components: structures, processes, functions and contents. Third, it identifies relationships within, between and among micro, meso and macro scales. The concept of organisation relates to conditions for the creation of entities (Rutherford, Kirkpatrick, and Davison 2023). Organisation refers both to the activity of organising and to a specific entity like an Environmental Protection Authority or State Emergency Service. Management similarly refers to managerial activity and to the management of specific entities. Management organisation then refers to its complexity (self-organisation and sociocultural organisation) and relationality of components (structure, process, function, contents) across scales (micro, meso, macro). Governance refers to who holds power and responsibility and who is accountable (Worboys et al. 2015).

The four basic organisational components of management systems – structure, process, function and contents – are described in Table 1. These components operate in open relation with the external spatial-temporal context in which management and organisation are taking place, involving exchanges of energy, matter and information. Information, energy and matter flow across boundaries that vary in permeability (Rutherford, Kirkpatrick, and Davison 2023).

Table 1. Definitions of organisational components.

Organisational component	Definition (Oxford English Dictionary)
Structure	the way in which the parts of something are connected or arranged
Process	a series of things that are done to achieve a particular result
Function	a special activity or purpose of a person or thing
Content	the things that are contained in something (e.g. information and narrative held in ‘organisations’)

Management outcomes, such as self-reliance or relative self-sufficiency in management systems, partly result from the organisation of management systems such as environmental management systems (ISO 14001) and sustainability management systems (ISO 26000) (International Organization for Standardization 2010, 2015). The management context is the local, sub-national, national and international (environmental, political, social, economic) settings across spatial and temporal scales.

A management structure is the interactive form an entity (e.g. the Environmental Protection Authority or State Emergency Service) takes in organising its management system. It includes interrelations with the system’s context (e.g. political settings) and outcomes (e.g. issues in environmental performance and disaster risk management). Across micro, meso, and macro scales, there are intra-local and inter-local environmental management and governance structures, intra-subnational and inter-subnational environmental management and governance structures, and intra-national and inter-national environmental management and governance structures.

A management process is the set of deliberate (e.g. policy directed) or self-organising (e.g. organically spontaneous) actions, steps or a flow in managing an entity, for example in achieving its vision and mission. Of note, these policies and actions themselves emerge from socio-ecological entities such as the nation-state that govern territories to achieve management objectives such as economic growth and reduced environmental and disaster risk. Across micro, meso and macro scales, there are: intra-local and inter-local environmental processes; intra-subnational and inter-subnational environmental processes; and intra-national and inter-national environmental processes.

A management function is the purposive tasks or activities in the efficient and effective fulfillment of an entity’s purpose. A functional entity does ‘what works’ and does not do ‘things that do not work’. Across micro, meso and macro sales, there are intra-local and inter-local environmental functions, intra-subnational and inter-subnational environmental functions, and intra-national and inter-national environmental functions. Commonly, the four functions of management are planning, leading, organising and controlling (Schermerhorn et al. 2011).

Management content is the information (knowledge and data) and narrative (stories and discourse) contained by the entity and its system(s). Across micro, meso and macro scales, there are intra-local and inter-local environmental content; intra-subnational and inter-subnational environmental content; and the intra-national and inter-national environmental content. For example, there are cultural narratives of collaboration, communication, trust and empowerment (Kirsop-Taylor, Hejnowicz, and Scott 2020). The concept of ‘semiotic content’, such as in conversations conducted and stories told, is especially apt in the age of digital content, including in social media.

The relational factors of scale, complexity, organisational component and type of system influence the competence and sustainability of management approaches to flood disasters. Spatial scale refers to relations of local (micro), subnational (meso) and national (macro) geography. Temporal scale refers to relations of before, during and after the disaster or emergency event. Complexity refers to self-organisation and sociocultural organisation (Rutherford 2023; Rutherford, Kirkpatrick, and Davison 2023). Organisational components relate to substantive relationships of the components of structure, process, function and contents (Rutherford, Kirkpatrick, and Davison 2023). The type of system covers relations within and between ecological, social and social-ecological systems (see Rutherford 2023 for ‘personal’ and ‘cultural’ systems).

3. Case study: the 2022 NRR floods

Between 28 February and 2 March 2022, an extreme flooding event in the Northern Rivers Region of NSW displaced about 1,300 residents and caused an estimated 1 billion dollars in damage to public and private infrastructure (Lismore City Council 2022; Northern Rivers Community Foundation 2022). This event had three major environmental characteristics (Lerat et al. 2022). First, across the region antecedent conditions were significantly wetter than average, with rainfall totals, soil moisture and groundwater consistently above the 75th percentile over the preceding two months. Second, an unprecedented rainfall event inundated the Richmond, Tweed and Brunswick rivers (Figure 2). Third, the flood event centred on the mid-Richmond and Wilsons River catchment, in and around the city of Lismore, where the maximum daily rainfall event was significantly higher than a 1 in a 100-year event.

Figure 2. Map of Northern Rivers Region NSW

(Source: CSIRO 2023).

Several rivers in NRR reached record peak height including Wilsons River in Lismore (2.12 m above the 1890 record), Tweed River in Murwillumbah (0.31 m above the 2017 record) and Tumbulgum (0.86 m above a 2017 record), Richmond River in Casino (0.28 m above the 2008 record), Coraki (0.64 m above the 1974 record), Bungawalyn Junction (1.48 m above the 1974 record) and Woodburn (1.8 m above a 1954 record), and Brunswick River in Mullumbimby (0.30 m above the 1987 record) (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2022, 48). The 2022 floods followed earlier flooding in 2021.

The impacts of the NRR floods were social, cultural, environmental and economic in nature (George et al. 2022). Social and cultural impacts included six lives lost and 1,300 houses badly damaged and 37 destroyed (MacKenzie and Herbert 2022; Parkes-Hupton 2022). Economic impacts included 300 businesses exposed to devastation, 18,000 jobs lost or threatened and sugarcane ($24.06 million), macadamia ($29.84 million) and blueberry ($7.97 million) crops as well beef production severely affected or destroyed (Honan and Johnson 2022; MacKenzie and Pezet 2022). There were also damages to roads and bridges ($150-200 million) and water and wastewater infrastructure (Lismore City Council 2022). Environmental impacts included wildlife killed or displaced (Local Land Services NSW 2022) and soil erosion.

Considering the management components in Figure 1, the management structures most relevant to the NRR floods were the local community, NSW statewide and federal Australian emergency management structures organising volunteers and state agencies. Relevant management processes included local community members who spontaneously took steps to evacuate fellow community members who were in flood distress. NSW and Australian emergency management services followed their flood disaster plans (as far as these were prepared). Relevant management functions included the local community and private and public actors engaged in planning, leading, organising and controlling the flood cycle. Relevant management contents included citizens relying on messages in mainstream and social media to provide information and narratives to guide their actions.

4. The NRR flood disaster response

In March 2022, the NSW government commissioned an independent expert inquiry into the causes of the catastrophic flood event across NSW with a focus on the NRR (O’Kane and Fuller 2022). In keeping with wider disaster management frameworks, the resulting report reflected four stages of management: prevention, preparation, response and recovery (Johns 2023). The inquiry identified four main problems in the management response to the 2022 Northern Rivers floods (summarised by Cockburn 2022). First, the NSW State Emergency Service did not ‘go early and go big’ (O’Kane and Fuller 2022, 187), failing to devote as many resources as possible to the disaster in the early stages. Indeed, Service volunteers lacked training, and the State Emergency Service Commission and local State Emergency Service controller had not reviewed the flood plans for the Northern Rivers after the 2021 event, among other failures to prepare.

Second, the NSW government disaster agency Resilience NSW failed to coordinate emergency management and created confusion about who was responsible for what (O’Kane and Fuller 2022).

Third, the loss of telecommunications services distressed local communities, with people unable to request flood rescues and communicate with family and friends. Critical infrastructure needs to be moved off floodplains (O’Kane and Fuller 2022), and power backup arrangements are necessary.

Lastly, the Bureau of Meteorology’s NSW rain gauge network was found to be not fit for purpose. There was confusion about who maintains the gauges (state, local or federal government). The Bureau and the state government need to collaborate and invest in upgrading the rain gauge network (under the Bureau’s leadership). There are 27 rainfall and 19 stream level gauges in the Wilson River catchment, which residents can monitor via the Bureau’s website. When the floods hit, one rain gauge was broken, and two other rain gauges and six stream gauges stopped communicating data during the event. Also, crucial equipment was poorly located, and important data was missed or distorted due to poor maintenance (Archibald-Binge 2022).

Natural Hazards Research Australia (2023) conducted interviews and survey research to ascertain community (‘lived’) experiences of floods in the first half of 2022, including in the Northern Rivers Region, NSW. Residents reported that ‘everything takes longer’ (Natural Hazards Research Australia 2023, p.29) because of the magnitude of the flooding and that they felt ‘in limbo’ (Natural Hazards Research Australia 2023, p.30) in the post-event recovery (which is known to be a slow process). They experienced cascading disasters with an interplay of floods, bushfires and COVID-19, affecting the capacities of individuals, communities and authorities to respond. Indeed, some residents had been flooded several times within months, and many had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The disasters were perceived to exacerbate pre-existing personal, financial and health vulnerabilities at the individual and community levels. Some had no access to a car during the flood, and some reported financially just getting by (Natural Hazards Research Australia 2023).

Human Rights Watch (2022) argue that the NSW and local authorities did not provide adequate flood warnings, evacuation or rescue support, which left older people, people with disabilities and those who were pregnant facing life-threatening circumstances with little government assistance: ‘Climate change exacerbates inequalities, and the failures seen in Lismore highlight the urgent need for the authorities to ensure inclusive climate action and planning’ (Human Rights Watch 2022, n.p.).

While the foregoing discussion focuses on failures in disaster response, ongoing long-term preparedness through adaptation and mitigation that reduces the risk of disaster occurrence and disaster severity is vital as well. Furthermore, a more integrated approach to disaster preparedness, response and recovery, as part of climate change adaptation and mitigation, is needed. For instance, planning and decision-making in the face of uncertainty need to incorporate new methods from climate science to understand how future climate risks may impact rainfall extremes and flooding in high-risk catchments.

According to Johns (2023), the lack of preparedness evident in the NRR floods needs to be addressed in at least five ways: (1) technologies that build community resilience (e.g. remote sensing and smartphone apps), (2) flood mitigation measures (e.g. structures like levees and practices like property buybacks), (3) risk-based approaches to flood planning, (4) local council flexibility in providing temporary housing and (5) just-in-time financial relief processes. Focussing more specifically on the NSW State Emergency Service, the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (2022) identified three strategies for improved disaster preparedness: (1) better partnerships with other agencies and organisations for preparedness and interoperability, (2) better response capacity including through support from NSW State Emergency Service volunteers and (3) better maintenance of equipment and technology so they are fit-for-purpose.

Moreover, flood disaster preparedness should incorporate weather forecasts, adequate rain and flow gauges at appropriate spatial scales, remotely sensed maps of flood inundation levels, assessments of property and human risks and vulnerability at scale. Furthermore, a structured scheme relating responsibilities for communication, advice on when to leave properties, safe available routes for escape, access to support for human rescues, cleanup assistance, advice on immediate financial assistance and help to families and businesses with insurance claims are advised. Counselling and psychological services should also be in place. Assessments of environmental damage and how to avoid or mitigate it if feasible is needed. A community forum to review the events and identify weaknesses and how to improve deficiencies may also be required.

The process of disaster recovery remains ongoing in the NRR (van den Nouwelant and Cibin 2022). The most vulnerable people in the highest-risk areas of the Northern Rivers need relocation through land swaps and buy-backs. It is likely that lax planning schemes, opportunistic property developers and housing affordability pressures in real estate markets have combined to place poorer people in housing that is vulnerable to natural disasters.

5. Cross-scalar relational analysis of the NRR floods

We argue that the model helps identify poor collaborative capacity, vulnerabilities in environmental management and governance systems, and the lack of systems-thinking competence as root causes of the inadequate disaster response. In our analysis, we distinguish several temporal phases. Prevention and preparedness involve restricting development in high-risk areas, good flood defence infrastructure (e.g. upstream water retention capacity) and flood risk mitigation, particularly in vulnerable areas. Disaster response involves timely warnings and evacuations to reduce flood impacts. Disaster recovery involves reconstruction plans, public compensation and private insurance schemes (Raadgever et al. 2016).

The underperformance of Resilience NSW in managing the 2022 NSW floods (O’Kane and Fuller 2022) could have been prevented if the agency better understood the social, economic and political relations of those people and organisations relevant to preventing and mitigating the crisis. For example, relationships between the state and federal governments can be critical and are subject to reasonable prediction. Local communities interact with each other and broader social systems, which also interact with each other in broadly predictable ways (c.f., Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2020). Citizens can act with purpose in the flood management process in space and time. Information (knowledge and data), and narratives (e.g. messages like ‘If it’s flooded, forget it’) can be conveyed by actors using interrelated meanings, power and norms (c.f. Giddens 1984) (see Table 2).

Table 2. Our relational cross-scalar model and the case of the NRR NSW floods of 2022.

Management factors	Illustrations from the Northern Rivers NSW flood disaster of 2022	Example/s of failures to manage the Northern Rivers flood disaster (before, during or after)	How our model suggests better understanding in practice to improve the management response
Pre-existing human-environment settings (management context across spatial-temporal scales)	Flood insurance regimes, disaster mitigation and adaptation measures, democratic polity	Failure of Resilience NSW to prepare for and manage the floods (O’Kane and Fuller 2022).	A better understanding of human-environment settings across scales could enable more effectively (self and collaboratively) organised responses
Environmental systems (management of structures in contexts across scales)	Broad-scale flood catchments, weather patterns (e.g. ‘flood bomb’ in a warming world) and anthropogenic drivers of climate change (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions – IPCC 2023)	Failures in the maintenance and management of the rain gauge system meant that the management responses to evolving environmental systems were inadequate and disconnected (O’Kane and Fuller 2022)	A better understanding of structural relations in environmental systems could facilitate more coordinated, adapted and transformed responses in a changing climate and world
Environmental units (management processes in structures across scales)	Individual waterways (rivers/dams) and people in communities (councils/towns)	Failure to adapt to antecedent conditions in rainfall totals, soil moisture and groundwater above the 75th percentile in the floods was a problem	A better understanding of the relationships between processes and structures in environmental systems could enable vulnerabilities to be considered and thus enable more rational planning
Human governance and social (change) agents (management functions in processes across scales)	Governments and their agencies at local, state and federal levels, relevant non-governmental organisations and civil society, financial institutions (especially insurance companies) and citizens.	Lack of flood preparation and organisation by the NSW State Emergency Service (O’Kane and Fuller 2022) and lack of flood preparedness at a personal or family scale in the Northern Rivers community may also have impaired flood management at other scales	A better understanding of the relationships of social agents in collaborative governance systems can aid in the development of management strategies for resilience
Sociotechnical relationships (management contents in functions across scales)	Communication and technological systems (mobile phones, internet sites like those of the Bureau of Meteorology and the State Emergency Service, radio, television and social media coverage) expressing cultural values of helping those in adversity as well as sanctions for failing to help or ignoring advice not to enter flood waters	Residents not following the message from authorities (‘if it’s flooded, forget it’), can lead to personal and social harm	A better understanding of the relationships between communication systems, social norms and power may facilitate the resolution of ethical problems for the sustainability of environmental systems
Human-environment outcomes (management outcomes across scales)	Deaths and property damage to homes and businesses, properties and entire areas becoming ‘unliveable’, (income) supports delivered to impacted persons such as immediate and additional government payments	Remote sensing technology and data fusion techniques could have been used better to manage the major flood through pre-flood, flood and post-flood phases, for instance, with respect to key performance indicators	A better understanding of the outcomes flowing from collective and individual resilience and complex adaptive organisation could potentially reduce fatalities, property loss and loss of livelihoods

With better understanding, well-organised community structures like citizen fora (Eagan 2016) could have facilitated resilient social-ecological processes, ensured resilient functions in the community and beyond, and enabled message cut-through of information and narrative as content. Of course, our model assumes multi-way relations within, between and among scales, so the foregoing is one simplified account of the relations of the organisational components of structure, process, function and contents.

We have proposed that self-organisation is a within or intra-relational complexity phenomenon and that socio-cultural organisation is a between (and among) or inter-relational complexity phenomenon (Rutherford 2022; Rutherford 2023; Rutherford, Kirkpatrick, and Davison 2023). In this respect, research on individual and collective environmental action is noteworthy (e.g. Bunyan, Collins, and Duffy 2016; Patterson, Smith, and Bellamy 2015), including action concerning disaster response. We also propose that there can be within (psychological) and between (social-psychological) relations in individual environmental action (e.g. Tam, Leung, and Clayton 2021) and within (sociological) and between (anthropological) relations in collective environmental action (e.g. Berghöfer et al. 2022), including in disaster responses across space and time.

6. Outcome indicators as relational: knowledge and power across the flood cycle

Our model (Figure 1; Table 2) includes sociotechnical relationships. Organisational systems become better construed and improved by bringing ‘social’/human and ‘technical’/machine aspects together and considering them as interdependent parts of a complex, open system (e.g. Sony and Naik 2020). In turn, understanding relational environmental management performance outcomes (e.g. social-relational indicators like security, sovereignty, equity and justice – Schröter et al. 2020) can assist with navigating knowledge and power systems (e.g. Muhl et al. 2022) as well as tracking optimal system resilience, sustainability and complexity.

Indicators as outcomes are relational when they are connected to knowledge and power dynamics. Hence, remote sensing technology and data fusion techniques can be used to manage a major flood through pre-flood, flood and post-flood phases with respect to relational indicators. In the pre-flood phase, relational indicators could improve monitoring and preparation (e.g. better data on soil moisture and groundwater as well as large-scale satellite sensing of weather and landscape systems). During the flood phase, relational indicators can enhance assessing and acting (e.g. with flow sensors, drone-based imaging and data alerts like on social media). In the post-flood phase, relational indicators can facilitate reviewing and planning (e.g. enhanced aerial imaging for damage analysis). Problems with data (outcome indicators) revealed in the flood inquiry (O’Kane and Fuller 2022), such as the breakdown in the rain gauge system, are instances of the way theory (model) and practice (case study) can be brought together.

Emergency services and climate and land management agencies at state and national levels in Australia have developed strong remote sensing capabilities. It is argued that more is needed to optimise and increase the adoption of available remote sensing technologies to plan, prepare, respond to and recover from disaster events. Also, the use of relational indicators (Muhl et al. 2022) can improve business-as-usual uses (O’Kane and Fuller 2022).

Muhl et al. (2022) assert that relational dimensions of knowledge and power bring into focus contested political, social and cultural issues influencing the development and use of indicators. They identify four critical dimensions of a relational perspective for better indicator process outcomes namely (1) centring identity and positionality as a way of levelling differentials of power, (2) indicator ‘fit’ and the politics of scale (challenging the notion of a distinct or ‘natural’ hierarchy of scales), (3) engaging rather than erasing social-ecological complexity and (4) reflecting on social norms and relationships fostering adaptation and learning (e.g. Holmqvist 2003).

Our relational, cross-scalar approach is framed in a way that reflects, represents and responds to the complexity and relationality of current environmental crises. Our approach may enable improved sustainability (including sustainability competencies), resilience, fairness and responsibility of semiotic (Valsiner 2023), environmental, political and cultural systems. Applying concepts and issues of scale, complexity, organisational component and type of system contribute to the effectiveness and sustainability of management approaches to disasters. This approach especially involves the complex and relational ideas of self-organisation and sociocultural organisation as relevant to improved management around natural disasters like the NRR floods.

While we are attracted to the idea of an adaptation hierarchy (Peck et al. 2022), our framework has in mind the sustainable management of socio-ecological systems (e.g. Gain et al. 2020; Gain, Ashik-Ur-Rahman, and Vafeidis 2019) that considers and entails nature-society relationships. In Tables 2 and 3, we construe a ‘cascade’ of six factors across scales: environmental settings, environmental (social-ecological) systems, environmental units, environmental governance by change agents, sociotechnical (e.g. engineering) relationships and environmental outcomes. Our cascade mimics the six tiers in the Peck et al. (2022) model, but the correspondence is not one-to-one. Both models are heuristic representations of reality and, as such, are not reality. Their explanatory power lies in the utility of the framework to account for real-world phenomena. Therefore, to assist future research, social-ecological indicators are proposed in Table 3. These are construed to recur over the disaster cycle (‘before’, ‘during’ and ‘after’ the event). Of note, any indicator in Table 3 can take the values of minor, moderate or major.

Table 3. Sustainability indicators for a social-ecological systems approach.

Factor	Social indicator questions	Environmental indicator questions	Economic indicator questions
Social-ecological settings (contexts)	Is there political policy alignment across the local, sub-national and national levels?	Are there available and accessible meteorological observations?	Are there equitable flood insurance schemes?
Social-ecological (resource) systems	Is public, private and community entity governance well organised (e.g. hierarchical, networked and polycentric)?	Are there flood mitigation and adaptation strategies in place?	Are there socio-economic safety nets?
Social-ecological (resource) units	Are there local community forums? If so, what is their extent?	Are river catchments integrated (e.g. an integration of upstream and downstream parts of the system)?	Are communities under economic stress?
Social-ecological governance (especially involving change agents)	Are there effective local community leaders?	Do local entities (e.g. households and businesses) have environmental emergency plans?	Are local (household, business) budgets in deficit, surplus or balance?
Sociotechnical relationships (in social-ecological systems)	Do people have smart devices (phones) for disaster information and stories (e.g. access to social media)?	Do people have access to weather – and rain gauge information?	Do people have digital (cashless) payment facilities?
Social-ecological outcomes	Is there social cohesion in the community?	Is there disaster readiness (mitigation and resilience) in the river catchment?	Is there optimistic economic activity evident in people’s livelihoods and in local businesses?

7. Conclusions

Using an Australian flooding case study, we have sought to demonstrate how socio-ecological resilience to disasters could be improved if management systems were informed by relational and cross-scalar models of socio-ecological complexity. Our relational cross-scalar approach to managing environmental disasters like the NRR floods advances learning from other studies (e.g. Cook 2023) by considering within and between relationships of (micro, meso and macro) scale; within and between relationships of management structure, process, function, contents; and within and between relationships of social-ecological settings, environmental systems, environmental units, governance and change agents, sociotechnical relationships and outcomes. We contend the NRR floods could have been better managed if sustainability change agents had employed more systems-thinking competence.

Our concepts of self-organisation and socio-cultural organisation may be expressed and experienced differently across cultural settings (e.g. communities and countries). Expression of the concept of self-control in self-organisation, for example, will work differently in Western contexts (e.g. self-organisation in Canada – Grzybowski and Slocombe 1988) than in Eastern contexts (e.g. self-control in India – Nguyen et al. 2019). Likewise, notions related to socio-political systems, like ‘democracy’, will work differently across the world (International IDEA 2022).

We have endeavoured to demonstrate that relational factors such as multiple scales, complexity, organisational components and social-ecological systems influence the effectiveness and sustainability of management approaches. Environmental management systems are viewed as relational, that is, mutually connected in ways that ensure that changes in one part of a relation affect all other parts of that relation. We identify building systems-thinking competence in sustainable development as valuable for better managing flood disasters in a relational, holistic way.

In practice, we propose a sequence of actions before, during and after floods to help managers, governments, communities and individuals to prepare for and cope with major floods in the future (see Table 2). To better manage flood disasters in future, we suggest social, environmental and economic measurement indicators for a relational social-ecological approach (Table 3).

Overall, we present an integrative, nuanced and internally coherent study and framework to advance research on relationality in twenty-first century environmental management systems with the potential to increase the sustainability of practice in these systems.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the substantial contributions of each other to the paper. The lead author created the first draft. Through successive iterations, the co-authors contributed to the final manuscript, providing intellectual input and approving the final version. Permission to use the map of the Northern Rivers Region, NSW, was kindly granted by the CSIRO, Australia.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).