Evaluating the Characteristics of Disaster Waste Management in Practice: Case Studies from Queensland and New South Wales, Australia

Abstract

Disaster waste management (DWM) has gained much attention due to the issues associated with the enormous amount of disaster waste generated by natural disasters. However, moving beyond ad hoc and champion-based take-up by practitioners, there is generally a lack of momentum towards mainstreaming such DWM practices to achieve resilient outcomes. This study aims to explore the characteristics of DWM practices, drawing on the lived experiences of industry practitioners and government decision-makers. An interpretive case study method was used to investigate how local government organisations could readily engage in effective DWM processes using the “Resilient disaster management framework” previously established by the research team. Insights include a lack of documented plans for DWM and at best a moderate focus on recovery processes for disaster waste. With these issues counterproductive to community resilience outcomes, there is an urgent need to better manage disaster waste, which we propose can be enabled and supported through DWM plans. The extended ‘resilient DWM framework’ proposed in this study provides a useful reference to prepare practical, agile, and comprehensive DWM plans.

1. Introduction and Background Context

Climate change effects and weather-driven natural hazards such as flooding, bushfire, and cyclones are becoming more intense and more frequent. When built up towns and cities are exposed to natural hazards, damage to property and infrastructure results in what is termed ‘disaster waste’, which requires management alongside other disaster response and recovery efforts [1]. There is growing global recognition of the impact that disaster waste management (DWM) has on achieving several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2]. Many of the targets under these goals emphasise the importance of resilience—such as significantly reducing the number of people affected by disasters and the resulting economic losses (Target 11.5) and enhancing resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries (Targets 13.1 and 13.2) [3]. Resilience is generally defined as “a system’s capacity to adapt to or respond to singular, unique and most often radically surprising events” [4]. Despite increasing international efforts, such as those led by the United Nations, to build resilient communities, academic research has paid limited attention to DWM from a resilience perspective. This gap has been highlighted in recent literature reviews on DWM [5,6].

According to the “National Waste Report, 2022”, 181,000 tonnes of disaster waste were recorded for 2020–21 from bushfire and flood events in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VC), Western Australia (WA), and Queensland (QLD) [7]. This disaster waste significantly impacts the health and wellbeing of people and the natural environment. Exposure to hazardous waste such as asbestos causes severe illness, and the magnitude of this waste including plastics and chemicals can have adverse impacts on biodiversity, air pollution, and water quality [8]. On the other hand, the volume of disaster waste impacts support services and immediate response efforts due to road blocking [8]. Despite these issues, proper handling and management of disaster waste can reduce negative economic, environmental, and social impacts through turning waste into valuable resources and building a resilient community. Effective planning and coordination are crucial to minimising disruption during disaster response [9]. Previous research has established four critical steps to investigate the pre-disaster planning of waste management, including the following: (1) estimation of disaster waste generation, (2) determination of temporary storage sites, (3) setting of system boundaries, and (4) data collection and inventory analysis. We explain these steps in the following section [10]. DWM plays a critical role by focusing on separating waste and subsequent treatment options [11], debris management planning, partnerships between state and local emergency management services [12]. However, much of the existing literature on disaster waste and debris management consists of isolated case studies and planning guidelines. Within a global context, debris management planning guidelines—such as those by Solis et al. [13], the United States Environmental Protection Agency [14], the Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA [15]—outline various technical and managerial strategies for handling disaster waste. Disaster research often lacks continuity, with studies typically focused on specific events. Challenges such as the variability between disasters, limited time frames, and difficulties in accessing reliable data hinder the development of broader, quantitative, cross-event analyses.

Holistic DWM plans should build on previous event experiences and also encompass both technical aspects (collection and transportation; temporary debris storage; recycling; disposal; hazardous waste handling and disposal) and management aspects (communication strategies; contract management; organisational roles and responsibilities; record keeping; Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishment) [6]. These guidelines are typically rooted in the existing legislative, organisational, and financial frameworks relevant to the specific context [16,17]. Furthermore, there are recycling opportunities for the material sorted after disasters in the form of recycled aggregates and other materials [18,19].

Within a national Australian context, plans such as State Emergency Management Plans (SEMP) in South Australia provide a framework for managing emergencies, including waste management during and after disasters [20]. This plan includes four parts: (1) providing a strategic overview, (2) providing overarching details of the arrangement and structures to address emergencies, (3) guidelines and frameworks with best practices and (4) standards required of the various levels of detailed plans. In New South Wales, the Hunter Joint Organisation provides a framework for local councils to collaboratively utilise in the event of a disaster to coordinate waste management [21]. QLD government offers an information sheet with coordinated waste management solutions focusing on managing waste in the disaster recovery period [22]. This highlights that, historically, local governments typically manage the clean-up process professionally and to a high standard via the engagement of local waste contractors.

With the increasing issues associated with the overwhelming amount of disaster waste generated, researchers have attempted to explore disaster waste management (DWM) in recent years [6,23,24]. DWM refers to the practices that are “responsible for handling, storing, collecting, and disposing of waste without posing a threat to the built environment as well as peoples’ health and wellbeing” [24]. DWM is also defined as “The management of debris is involved at the recovery stage as debris generated through damaged buildings need to be collected, transported, reused, recycled, land filled or disposed” [25]. It also involves different processes, people, laws, and standard procedures to be followed at different phases of the disaster management cycle: Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (PPRR) [26]. DWM has been a challenging task because of the challenging factors such as financial resources, capacity of organisations and individuals [1], constraint of time across various disaster types, and the difficulties associated with data accessibility [8]. Zhang et al. [3] conducted a comprehensive review of recent developments in DWM, building upon the foundational work of Brown et al. [6]. Their study examined progress across nine key areas: planning, waste characteristics, treatment options, environmental impact, economic factors, social considerations, organisational structures, legal frameworks, and funding mechanisms.

Although there are numerous guidelines available for DWM nationally and internationally, these factors affect practitioners differently in executing their DWM plans properly. This study aimed to explore the characteristics of DWM practices, drawing on the lived experiences of industry practitioners and government decision-makers.

To achieve this research aim, two research questions were formulated using a Resilient Disaster Waste Management Framework (RDWMF), based on the authors’ previous work [8], as follows:

RQ 1. How could the characteristics of the RDWMF, such as data management, training, resource management, communication, stakeholder management, and recovery process, be used in practice?

RQ 2. How do government authorities and industry practitioners aim to implement their DWM plan in practice?

The purpose of this study was to use the previously established framework to explore the characteristics of DWM practices from the ground level and offer unique case-based insights. The following sections provide an overview of the method, key findings, and a discussion of the proposed extended Resilient Disaster Waste Management Framework.

2. Method

2.1. Research Design

The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics of DWM practices from an operational viewpoint based on the RDWMF proposed in the authors’ previous work [23]. This framework was initially developed using twelve semi-structured interviews, including 3 industry practitioners and 9 government decision-makers (7 local government decision-makers and 2 state government decision-makers) [27]. The current study is an extension of the authors’ previous work, and it involved two additional case studies to explore the characteristics of DWM practices in depth and understand the process of making a DWM plan in practice. Figure 1 illustrates the research design process of the current study.

2.2. Research Approach

The current study used a qualitative approach that involved an interpretive multiple case study method, which is a popular method to understand processes, problems, or programmes to engender improvements [28,29]. The number of participants is relatively small due to the complexity of managing and analysing the large volume of data [27,30]. The key principle for selecting an appropriate case study is the richness of information with respect to the topic of investigation [29,31]. The two cases were selected from Queensland and New South Wales, Australia, to understand the phenomenon of DWM in practice.

2.3. Case Selection

The case studies were selected based on purposive sampling approach [31], following the criteria of functional and suitability attributes which reflect the study purpose, accessibility to the key informants, and possibility of data collection within a limited timeframe [30]. Functional attributes were based on the geography of which communities that are highly vulnerable to disasters and generate a high volume of disaster waste (cases based in Queensland and New South Wales), accessibility to the key informants, and the ability to collect data within the desired time frame. Suitability attributes were based on involvement in disaster management activities, which the communities have experienced over a decade of natural disaster events. The aim was to draw on the lived experiences of the interview participants from the selected case studies and derive examples (current practices, practices they are aspiring to achieve, or possible plans to implement when aiming for better disaster management planning) aligned with the elements of the DWMF, as shown in Section 2.5. Although the selected entities did not have formal DWM plans at the time of the study, they were actively engaged in disaster waste-related activities. This allowed us to examine how elements of planning are approached in practice, particularly in informal or emerging forms, which aligns with the study’s second research question.

2.4. Data Collection

Potential cases were contacted through the Queensland Office of the Inspector General Emergency Management’s disaster management network. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data for exploring the execution of DWM in practice. Interview participants comprised a manager of resource recovery, an operations manager, and senior staff involved in disaster management operations. An interview guide was developed based on the RDWM framework proposed by Caldera et al. [23], and it was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Sunshine Coast (ethics approval number: A242194). Interviews were conducted online for 40–60 min and were audio recorded for transcription. This qualitative inquiry enabled deeper exploration and discovery, focusing on whether there was evidence to support the problem rather than on measuring the size of the problem [32].

2.5. Data Analysis

Audio data captured from three participants were manually transcribed before analysing. Transcripts were deeply analysed by the research team to explore the research questions. Thematic analysis was used employing deductive coding to examine interview data [33]. Before the analysis, a set of a priori codes were set up based on the RDWM framework.

According to Figure 2, stakeholders can be engaged across the six key focus areas—training, resource management, recovery processes, communication, data management, and stakeholder management—by aligning these efforts with the phases of the PPRR model (Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery). Since the PPRR model is widely adopted in many countries for their National Disaster Management Plans, integrating it into DWM (Disaster Waste Management) practices will help mainstream and strengthen resilience within the DWM framework [23].

Building on the DWM action plan elements, the a priori codes including data management, training, resource management, communication, stakeholder management, and recovery process were used for the analysis. Other emergent codes were generated as in vivo codes to define the understanding and conceptualization of DWM and resilience.

A team of three researchers coded the interview data to corroborate the emergent themes to reduce bias in the synthesised data [34]. There was 80 per cent agreement, which is an acceptable inter-coder reliability rating [35].

3. Results

The following paragraphs summarise findings from the exploration of the two cases, referred to as “Case 1” and “Case 2”.

3.1. Profile Summary of the Two Case Studies

Case 1 is a commercial waste business unit within a city council, located in the southwest of Greater Brisbane, covering an area of 1085 km² and serving a population of 229,208. It provides both domestic and commercial waste services to the cities of two Regional Councils in Queensland. Two participants were interviewed in this case. Participant 1 (P1) is the manager of resource recovery, with four and a half years’ experience in the current role and 23 years of overall experience in waste management. Participant 2 (P2) is the operations manager, who has been in this role for three months but has a total of 26 years’ experience in the waste management business.

Case 2 is a community-based initiative that has been actively working in recovery since the 2022 disaster that heavily impacted a city in NSW, located in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales, Australia, within a 1290 km² area and with a population of 44,334 [20]. The role of this initiative at that time was essentially focused on cleanup and housing restoration, coordinating volunteers and other assistance to manage the waste generated from the event. Participant (P3) in this case is the executive director of this initiative, with 8 years of experience in disaster recovery, and P3 was formerly a councillor for a city council in NSW.

3.2. Understanding “DWM” and “Resilience” in the Context of DWM

As the foundational step, deeply understanding the concepts of disaster waste management and resilience was critical prior to evaluating the characteristics of DWM using the components in the RDWMF, as shown in Section 3.3. Therefore, the authors enquired about practitioners’ understanding of the concept of DWM. Participants from Case 1 demonstrated a broad understanding of what DWM mean to them. P2 explained DWM as encompassing three broad phases, including pre-, during-, and post-disaster planning, with a focus on establishing a disaster management pad to handle, store, sort, and recover waste from both pre- and post-cleanup activities. “we have a disaster management pad that we’ve just finished building at our facility. So, we know we can take all the products somewhere to handle it and manage it right” [P2].

In addition, P1 explained DWM from a commercial viewpoint that there are government requirements to meet the expectations of communities when offering waste services [P1]. While P3 from Case 2 defined DWM as “managing the significant volumes of waste that are generated after a disaster”, P3 stressed that there is a missing piece of work in this definition. That is from the “community level” and the “government level”, highlighting the importance of community awareness campaignsto educate people on t proper waste disposal and salvage practices. Furthermore, there should be targeted local government and state-level efforts to manage logistics and coordinate the removal of the quantum of waste that are generated [P3]. Based on the insights from both cases, DWM involves planning activities across pre-, during- and post-disaster phases, with the participation of community coordinated at the government level.

Resilience is another important concept that researchers always focus on with DWM. Despite the academic aspects of resilience, authors of this study expected to obtain the practitioners’ viewpoint of resilience in DWM. P2 from Case 1 defined resilience from an operational aspect as “resilience is always meant the ability to either withstand or show a toughness during an event, but it’s how fast that you can recover from something from a disaster shows the resilience” [P2]. Adding to the same conversation, P1 described different aspects of resilience in terms of residents, businesses, communities, personal resilience in how individuals deal with disasters, and facilities and equipment being designed to handle such events. Of these different aspects, P1 highlighted that the most interesting is personal resilience, giving an example; “during the last flood I had to stand down one of my offices because they were becoming so traumatised because they kept seeing image upon image of people’s lives being destroyed.” [P1]. This example illustrates the ability to confront the psychological or mental impact of disasters under personal resilience.

P3 from Case 2 defined resilience as “it is about the ability to withstand significant shock, but still to return from that significant shock” [P3]. In terms of DWM, P3 stated that they are embedding resilience into the types of materials used, the restoration building codes, and related measures, highlighting that lessons learnt from previous disasters suggest that disaster waste generation would decline as a result. This could be attributed to having more resilient disaster-educated communities [P3]. This can be identified as material resilience, where we think of material types that are being used in homes or offices to reduce waste in the event of disasters. According to insights from both cases, personal resilience and material resilience emerge as the main practical focuses in applyingresilience to DWM.

3.3. DWM Plan and Its Characteristics

In terms of the availability of a clearly defined DWM plan, interviewees in both cases responded “No”. However, Case 1 has an overall plan to manage any disaster event, which is the Business Continuity Plan (BCP). They believe that having a general plan is better than a specific one, emphasising “it doesn’t actually matter what the cause of the disruption was, usually your processes to deal with the disruption are generally the same” [P1]. On the other hand, although they accept that having a specific DWM plan is useful, they do not put a lot of faith or time into very prescriptive plans, because every event is very different and requires a flexible response. Further, P1 stated, “trying to hold people to very, very specific responses is almost impossible” [P1].

The participant from Case 2 responded that they do not have a formal DWM plan because they have been funded to deliver a project over the next year, during which they will focus on building a plan specifically aimed at community awareness. However, interviewees from both cases described the components of a DWM plan in relation to what they currently have or what they have been doing.

Table 1. Participants’ responses in relation to DWM plan components.

Characteristics of DWM Plan	Interviewee	Evidence (Participants’ Responses)	Key Learnings from the Interview Findings
Data management	Case 1-P1	“I suppose we use data around what to expect. What did we expect in the 2011 flood as opposed to the, you know, the 2021 flood and what we could expect for a flood of that nature again in relation to how much waste we will expect to come in”.	Be prepared by knowing what to expect based on previous disaster events
	Case 1-P2	“we’ve just finished building a very large new resource recovery pad where you can store and sort and move, you get a chance at least at some level of resource recovery”.	Building infrastructure such as recovery pads to store, sort and recover disaster waste
	Case 2-P3	“Having a handle on the data management that accurately tells that story in order to strategically plan for landfill facilities essentially and for managing hazardous waste as well”.	Data management to strategically plan for waste management facilities and landfill options
Training	Case 1-P2	“We’ve identified that we could possibly do further training even though we’ve got a highly skilled workforce that operate”.	Training people to create a highly skilled workforce to activate during disasters
	Case 2-P3	“we will be endeavouring to improve the literacy in the community around what needs to be thrown out and what maybe doesn’t need to be thrown out”.	Educating communities to identify what waste types should be disposed of and retained
Resource management	Case 1-P1	“I tend to use from a lot of things, which is a people process and technology summary”.	Having a range of resources such as people, process and technology summary accessible during disasters
	Case 1-P2	“we need to think about how’s this going to be paid for, how do we recover costs, especially if we’ve got to use external people like landfills. Bringing external companies to help with, you know, vehicles or equipment”.	Methods to utilise funding, manage costs, leverage external parties, vehicles, and equipment
	Case 1-P3	“One of the things that we are doing is some asset mapping. And then, we deploy those resources accordingly, so we will be working to try to identify as much of that within the local community out front as we can, so that we can plan for more effective coordination as soon as possible”.	Asset mapping, effective resource deployment and coordination
Communication	Case 1-P2	“That’s clearly defined in our continuity plan in local government. So, from a communication viewpoint, it’s clear who does what in what situation”.	Following a continuity plan
	Case 2-P3	“It should be fast. It should be regular. It should be shareable and that way we’ve got a consistent communication platform rather than multiple sources of information in an already overloaded information environment”.	Critical need for a fast, regular, consistent, and a shareable communication platform
Stakeholder management	Case 1-P1	“So whether that’s the general public, whether that’s businesses, whether that’s the elected Members, whether that’s higher up levels of government, you know you need to ensure that that communication is very clear up and around paths”.	Clear communication within and between stakeholders
	Case 2-P2	“Common in disasters is there are always emergent community initiatives and community responses. So, linking in with those emergency groups and activities I think is really important and providing resources to those groups and activities”.	Connecting community initiatives with emergency response groups
Recovery process	Case 1-P1	“we might have surge capacity where we hold on to different materials for different times. We know what the different landfills can take. We know what the different vendors can take”.	Prioritising and increasing capacity for resource recovery
	Case 2-P3	“The first phase is the immediate removal of goods and belongings and furniture, chip board that’s disintegrated. There are then subsequent and longer term waste phases that are associated with the rebuild and the restoration of properties, so people might not get around to the removal and replacement of the internal parts of the house until a number of months down the track”.	Using a phased approach depending on the quantity, quality and the capacity for recovery

shows evidence to support how extensively the components of a DWM plan have been used in practice.

3.3.1. Data Management

The interviewees from Case 1 clearly stated that data management plays a critical role at the prevention stage. Prevention data helps them identify areas based on risk levels (i.e., as high risk or low risk). Further, they considered data as historical knowledge. Substituting data management with historical records and understanding gives historical experience, so after every disaster event, debriefing those events to figure out what worked and what did not work helps capture this historical knowledge.

P3 from Case 2 stated that data management is important in other stages like preparation, response, and recovery. In their council, official government records track the amount of waste passing over bridges, arriving at the council’s waste facility, and then how much was transported to other facilities.

3.3.2. Training

Participants from both cases responded that training is an essential part of the DWM plan. However, Case 1 considered training in a holistic view, highlighting that disaster management is not just about waste management—it is part of the whole process. For example, P2 stated, “It’s not just usually a waste disaster. It’s a people disaster. It’s a flood. It’s you know, it’s fires, it’s holistic right, so back the waste is one portion, but it has to work inside everything else”. From a training point of view, Case 1 considers training to constantly look at what they can do better and how they can train their people to be prepared.

Based on the nature of Case 2, their focus on training is to make the community aware of the salvage and unnecessary waste creation. They provide clear advice, particularly on white goods, highlighting that “you might not need to throw away your fridge. Your fridge might be able to be repaired. If we could prevent broad scale sending of fridges to landfill, that would be a really positive outcome” [P3]. In this way, they will endeavour to improve literacy in the community around what needs to be thrown out and what may not need to be thrown out.

3.3.3. Resource Management

In terms of resource management, P1 from Case 1 categorised many aspects into people, process, and technology. From that point of view, they focus on who the key people to communicate with are, what processes are available, and what equipment or technology is available. In addition, P2 touched on funding and some challenges of putting information about resource management in the DWM plan. Although allocating funding is important from a business standpoint, in real situations, their priority is to complete the job first. On the other hand, though they accept that documenting required information is valuable, much of the necessary knowledge cannot be fully captured in written form. For example, P2 stated the importance of knowing what and how something can be recycled, “we’ve got a whole heap of scrap metal and, let’s recycle that”. They emphasised that it is not possible to document every action because the issues are complex and there is no quick, easy solution. However, they have an intuitive understanding of what can and cannot be done.

Case 2 uses information about available assets or equipment to plan for more effective coordination in DWM and build partnerships with other organisations involved in waste management, synchronizing responses with official government efforts. For example, P3 stated “At a certain period of time following the disaster, what we know is that there is always more waste that comes out after the Council has completed its waste removal strategy. So we work to come in afterwards, and when the official government responses wind down. We embed that information and that planning into our procedures”. This example illustrates how information about certain processes can be used in DWM. Both cases highlight the importance of having information on people, processes, and technology for resource management.

3.3.4. Communication

P2 from Case 1 responded that a proper communication channel for responding to relevant parties involved is clearly defined in their BCP, and communication lines are set within the local government (see Table 1). For example, they have clearly established customer service, disaster management groups, and a chain of responsibility in relation to sign-offs for monetary purposes.

P3 from Case 2 responded that communication should be managed by local government as much as possible, emphasizing that local authorities need to quickly establishconsistent, comprehensive, and regular communication strategies that can then be shared and amplified by other stakeholders.

3.3.5. Stakeholder Management

Case 1 highlighted that their main stakeholders are internal stakeholders such as customer service, senior management groups, call centres, and a local disaster committee consisting of senior people, branch managers, general managers, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), and politicians. P2 stated, “these people already know the rules, they already know how to communicate, they already know who to deal with, so what they are doing is using experienced people in inexperienced roles to do the things”.

In addition to local government and councils, Case 2 highlighted the community and other business organisations as their stakeholders. P3 stated “it is important to provide appropriate resources to assist community in their initiatives and PPE (Property, Plant and Equipment) for appropriate safe handling of hazardous”. For other business organisations, their approach is different from what it is for households and residents. P3 highlighted “targeted planning for how to engage with those particular stakeholders is important as they have a significant number of businesses who are also managing waste removal and clean up”. From the insights of both cases, it is clear that different approaches are employed for different stakeholders in DWM.

3.3.6. Recovery Process

In terms of the recovery process for short-term and long-term DWM, P1 from Case 1 responded, “they haven’t probably got as much detail in that as they probably wouldn’t other than they utilise their normal processes to deal with stuff.” P1 further stated that they probably need to do invest a bit more effort in this aspect, as it requires time, workshopping, and careful consideration.

P3 from Case 2 responded that there are definite phases for the recovery process for short-term and long-term DWM. For example, “The first phase is immediate removal of easy to move belongings. There are then subsequent and longer-term waste phases that are associated with the rebuild and the restoration of properties. Simultaneously taking steps to manage environmental waste such as waste that has come down the river systems” [P3]. This evidence indicates that Case 1 has not yet focused on the recovery process, while Case 2 has definite phases of the recovery process.

3.4. Making a DWM Plan in Practice

Following on the institutional theory aspect of the RDWMF [8], the authors of this paper attempted to figure out how government authorities (coercive), neighbouring local governments or organisations (mimetic), and community or voluntary organisations (normative) influence the development of a DWM plan. In terms of coercive influence, Case 1 highlighted that it is obvious to follow rules and regulations imposed by federal, state, or local government authorities when managing disaster waste. “Anything you do, anything you store, would have to be done within licence, would have to be done within transport rules” [P1]. Case 2 responded that they adhere to hazardous material handling policies and procedures by providing an example that “we definitely embed a really strong adherence to safety in terms of how we would traverse the flood zone essentially and how we keep people safe in terms of managing that stuff” [P3].

In terms of mimetic influence, P2 stated that they consider networking with other local government waste group a very important aspect of making a DWM plan, emphasizing the value of sharing information and networking. “I will say for me and for most waste managers in the state, we all know each other across the board from Cairns to Tweed. So, we all share this stuff already and during events we’re very quick to help each other out” [P2].

In terms of normative influence, P3 from Case 2 stated that they definitely consider community practices in relation to regulation and policy, highlighting a story of creative repurposing “we had a community member come to us with an idea for, like community art projects following the disaster. in terms of linking back to that preparedness stuff, there might be an opportunity for some, you know, creative repurposing of some of those materials that then ensures that that story about you know the waste that is generated following disasters It could be repurposed into a mural or a mosaic. It ensures that awareness is carried through to future community members” [P3]. They also emphasised the role of voluntary organisations, highlighting that “we refer to appropriate agencies like Fire and Rescue. So, if we identify hazard material, we refer up to appropriate government agencies, who can then respond accordingly” [P3].

Evidence from both cases indicates the role of government authorities in setting up rules and regulations in managing disaster waste, sharing best practices of other neighbouring councils or organisations, and heightening community and voluntary organisations’ participation, highlighting the applicability of institutional theory in making a DWM plan in practice.

4. Discussion

This section provides a discussion on the concept of DWM and resilience, components of the RDWMF, and key factors considered in making a DWM plan, based on the analysis and findings from the case studies above.

4.1. Concepts of DWM and Resilience

The understanding of DWM and resilience concepts in practice aligns closely with academic definitions found in the literature. Previous studies have described DWM based on the different phases of the disaster cycle—pre-, during-, and post-disaster [9,21]—which is evident in the practice, too. In addition, it is understood or defined based on the and council viewpoint (Case 1). Furthermore, missing pieces of the current definition of DWM are highlighted as “community level” and “government level” (P3-Case 2) in practice.

While resilience is generally defined as “a system’s capacity to adapt to or respond to singular, unique and most often radically surprising events”, there are different aspects of resilience influencing DWM. A few of them are disaster resilient community [1,36], climate disaster resilience [37], circular economy resilience [38], urban resilience [39] and institutional resilience [40]. In addition to these aspects, case studies highlighted another two important aspects of resilience as “personal resilience” (Case 1) and “material resilience” (Case 2). Personal resilience is important when responding to clients or community or handing disaster waste during traumatic situations. Makwana [41] stated that individuals and communities experience a mental instability that might cause anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder because of disasters. It is important to support the development and strengthening of mental and emotional resilience to cope with difficult times. Additionally, crowds should be viewed as part of the solution rather than as part of the problem during mass emergencies and disasters [42,43]. Previous research indicates that strong social support received after a disaster is associated with increased psychological resilience [44]. It is about finding ways to navigate challenges, adapt to change, and, ultimately, recover and thrive. Material resilience is embedding resilience into types of material that are used by community or supporting workers, which is important in reducing waste in subsequent disasters. This concept has been incorporated by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority as resilient building design and construction to reduce damage caused by disasters [45].

4.2. DWM Plan and Its Components

Although previous research highlighted the importance of having a documented DWM plan [23], both case studies show that such formal documentation is often not maintained. The interview data highlighted how DWM planning can take place even in the absence of formal documentation. Activities such as preparing recovery infrastructure, coordinating stakeholders, conducting training, and implementing phased waste handling all represent key planning efforts. These actions illustrate how DWM planning can be developed and applied gradually, embedded in current business continuity plans, especially in practical, resource-limited, or evolving contexts.

Case 1 provided reasons for not having a specific DWM plan, explaining that it is very difficult to maintain multiple documents for different events. The plan must be reviewed annually and should not simply sit unused until the next disaster occurs, as every event is unique. They emphasized that relying heavily on a rigid, detailed plan is impractical because the response needs to be flexible to adapt to varying situations. These points indicate that DWM planning often unfolds organically through practice and experience. Therefore, they have an overall high-level plan that is a Business Continuity Plan, where they consider DWM as part of their business continuity plan. In the absence of a formal DWM plan, Case 2 follows a coordinated approach to work on DWM whereby they closely collaborate with the state government and volunteers. Even though both cases do not have a documented DWM plan, they discussed its components in relation to their current practice.

Table 2. Summary of which components of the DWM plan have been used in practice.

Components of DWM Plan	Use of Components of DWM Plan in Practice		Level of Importance
	Case 1	Case 2
Data management	Yes	Yes	High
Training	Yes	Yes	High
Resource management	Yes	Yes	High
Communication	Yes	Yes	High
Stakeholder management	Yes	Yes	High
Recovery process	No	Yes	Medium

provides a summary that shows which components of the DWM plan have been used in practice and its importance.

Case 1 highlighted that data management plays an important role in the prevention stage, while Case 2 highlighted that it is important in other stages like preparation, response, and recovery. This includes capturing waste data to strategically plan for waste facilities, managing hazardous waste, and implementing responses accordingly. Oloruntoba et al. [46] highlighted that it is necessary to incorporate information gathered from previous events, as it can be used to lessen risks in preparation for future events. In terms of training, both cases considered it an essential part of DWM. Based on the evidence from both cases, in practice, training is provided for workers holistically covering everything in disaster management (including DWM), ensuring better preparation and for the community focusing on increasing awareness of avoiding unnecessary waste creation. Oloruntoba et al. [46] stated that skilled workers and volunteers are necessary for preparedness. In resource management, Case 1 discussed its importance from people, process, and technology summary, while Case 2 highlighted the importance of coordination and building partnerships among other stakeholders (local government and other business organisations). The literature discussed the role of humans and technology in DWM [47]. The researchers provided examples of using technology and processes in DWM, such as sensors for the sorting process, GPS for waste transportation process monitoring, a logistic digital system, waste mobile apps, and automatic compactor trucks [27]. The use of intelligent waste management systems, big data analysis, and automated processing technologies is becoming increasingly prevalent in disaster waste management [48].

Communication is well set up in practice, establishing a proper channel for how to contact and who to contact. Case 2 emphasised that the local government should take the lead in establishing a consistent, comprehensive, and regular communication strategy that can be shared with other stakeholders. However, Fatimah et al. [47] pointed out that different government and non-governmental organisations that collect the most waste information during the post-disaster phase lack communication and integration. In terms of stakeholder management, Case 1 mainly focused on internal stakeholders such as the senior management group, call centre, and the local disaster committee, whereas Case 2 focused on external stakeholders such as the community and other business organisations. In practice, it is evident that different approaches are applied to different stakeholders, and this indicates that targeted planning for how to engage with those stakeholders is important in stakeholder management. Elkady et al. [49] found a decision support tool for enhancing stakeholder interaction in disaster events. This includes initiatives such as enhancing the leadership skills of emergency managers and facilitating community participation in the decision-making process and disaster response activities.

For the recovery process, Case 1 did not provide much information about this component, but Case 2 discussed it in definite phases of short-term and long-term initiatives. The first phase is the immediate removal of easy-to-move belongings, which happens in short term. In the long term, rebuilding and the restoration of properties occur in subsequent phases, followed by steps to manage environmental waste. Tabata et al. [50] emphasised that immediate removal and treatment of waste generated during disasters are essential for the rapid recovery and reconstruction of the affected area and reduce the environmental impact of disaster waste. Resource recovery after a disaster not only involves restoring and rebuilding affected areas, focusing on rebuilding physical infrastructure, but also needs to focus on supporting the wellbeing of people and restoring the environment. Previous research has identified that competence of construction professionals (contractors and builders) and the government response and intervention in terms of legislation and policy, and government support and assistance, as common constraints to the resourcing of disaster recovery projects [51].

Based on the above discussion, the RDWMF can be extended with examples from the industry practice found by the current study (Figure 3). This framework will be a great source of reference to prepare a practical, agile, and a comprehensive but concise DWM plan, as it provides practical examples for each element of the DWM action plan. Although the previous RDWMF focuses on key elements that need to be included in the DWM plan, it lacks guidance on what to address in these key elements in practice. The extended framework proposed in this study will fill this gap by illustrating practical examples.

As indicated in Figure 3, data management is an essential element at the prevention stage of the DWM cycle, and it can be used to capture waste data and strategically plan waste facilities accordingly. It also helps manage hazardous waste and implement proper responses. Training can be given to increase awareness of unnecessary waste creation. Resource management can primarily be categorized into people, processes, and technology. In communication, well-consistent, comprehensive, and regular communication can be established under the local government leadership. Different approaches can be followed for managing different stakeholders. The recovery process can be executed through short-term and long-term actions to manage waste. Incorporating such examples in the DWM plans will support in achieving resilient outcomes through better managing disaster waste.

4.3. Driving Forces for the DWM Plan

In the literature, key factors that influence a DWM plan are largely discussed from the institutional theory aspect which are coercive, normative, and mimetic [52]. According to this theory, coercive elements represent rules and regulations, laws, and policies set up by federal, state, or local government bodies; normative elements represent norms or practices performed by a community or volunteer organisations. The mimetic element represents sharing best practices followed by the neighbouring local governments or other business organisations [23,53,54]. In practice, similar elements can be observed as driving forces behind the DWM plan, as shown in the findings. Therefore, all three isomorphisms of institutional theory are relevant and applicable to DWM practice.

5. Conclusions

The current study aimed to explore the characteristics of DWM practices, drawing on the lived experiences of industry practitioners and government decision-makers. An interpretive case study method was used to investigate how local government organisations could readily engage in effective DWM processes using the “Resilient disaster management framework” previously established by Caldera et al. [23]. Findings indicate that the components of the RDWM framework are relevant and used in practice. However, compared to the other five components of this framework (data management, training, resource management, communication, and stakeholder management), resource recovery received only moderate focus. Given that resource recovery is a major component of DWM, industry practitioners should place greater emphasis on this element, as it helps minimise the environmental burden of disaster waste and supports the achievement of resilient outcomes.

Furthermore, it was observed that there is a lack of documented DWM planning in practice. Within the investigated cases, it was evident that some industry practitioners are reluctant to maintain a formal document, as they believe that each event requires a different approach and that maintaining a single document may hinder flexibility during different events. This indicates that industry practitioners may not yet fully recognise the benefits of having a documented DWM plan, which can present measures in a concise yet adaptable way. Future efforts could focus on raising awareness among industry practitioners about the importance of having a documented DWM plan and on promoting good practices for its development and implementation.

This study contributes to knowledge by extending the current RDWM framework and offering rich insights from both local government and practitioner perspectives. While the previous literature has largely focused on the public sector, this paper offers a novel contribution through insights from both public and industry practitioner perspectives. The findings also highlight that social practices play a crucial role in effective disaster waste management, encompassing community engagement, collaboration, and the implementation of appropriate waste management strategies (to store, sort, and recover) during and after disasters. These practices help ensure efficient waste handling, recovery efforts, and reduce environmental and social impacts.

Although the RDWM framework was extended using a limited number of case studies in Australia, the richness of information in these cases should not be underestimated. Therefore, the extended RDWMF can serve as a valuable reference not only to educate industry practitioners but also to support the preparation of flexible, comprehensive, yet concise DWM plans. Future research could focus on further development and validation using a wider and more diverse range of cases, offering more generalisable insights intothe studied phenomena.