FINDINGS

The project found that, even under worst-possible scenarios in each of the five case study areas, it is economically viable to continue to occupy the area.

The study applied four broad "pathways" to each case study area: Accommodate, Moderate Protection; Major Protection; and Retreat.

"Retreat" was not considered to be necessary for any of the studied areas.

In fact, the best cost-benefit in two of the case study areas was discovered to be via the "Accommodate" pathway, without any immediate physical infrastructure work being recommended.

IN THESE CASES, THE STUDY FOUND THAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO WORK ON PLANS, POLICIES AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION WHILE PREPARING TO IMPLEMENT "MODERATE PROTECTION" IN THE FUTURE.

In the other three case studies, the research suggests that "Moderate Protection" should be considered now.

This is reassuring as the affected municipalities are already undertaking such works. For these councils, the study confirms that they are on top of the issue and are responding appropriately.

In undertaking the project, it was discovered that roles and responsibilities for flood mitigation needed to be clarified between spheres of government and across authorities and agencies.