Australia is facing multiple, overlapping climate hazards at once. The National Adaptation Plan (NAP), released last year, recognised that climate variables feed back on and affect one another. Yet our current governance approaches to assessing climate risk primarily treat hazards as if they exist in isolation, missing important connections between them. For example, a drought response might overlook emerging fire risk, and a coastal protection scheme might not account for flooding inland. Siloed approaches can be inefficient, costly and sometimes maladaptive.

Climate adaptation includes efforts to build resilience into how we design our cities, protect coastal assets from rising seas and adjust agricultural systems to sustain farm business and food security.

New evidence from the Australian Adaptation Database indicates a disconnect between how we assess climate risk and plan for adaptation. The database shows that 76% of adaptation initiatives are either connected to multiple hazards at once or fall within broader systems-based approaches to climate risk. Most of this activity, however, remains at the planning stage, and it is unclear if this multi-hazard approach will carry through into actions.

As governments implement the NAP, policymakers should shift adaptation governance toward integrated multi-hazard approaches, including stronger cross-agency coordination and risk assessment frameworks that better reflect interconnected hazards. International best practice shows this will require cooperative, coordinated and sustained effort.

What the adaptation database tells us

The Australian Adaptation Database, included in the NAP, provides a key evidence base to support this shift. It is the first national stocktake of adaptation activity in Australia and contains over 950 publicly available examples, ranging from local interventions and knowledge‑building activities to national legislation.

The database categorises each adaptation initiative by hazard type, using the ten categories established by the National Climate Risk Assessment methodology. Each example in the database is coded for up to four hazard types simultaneously, and the database shows that many adaptation initiatives respond to more than one hazard at a time. An additional "general climate change" category captures initiatives that do not fit neatly within specific hazard types, such as multi-hazard early warning systems, and broad adaptation strategies.

With 76% of adaptation initiatives in the database either addressing multiple hazards at once (e.g., drought and fire) or falling within the broader "general climate change" category, the data suggests that adaptation decision-makers are already approaching climate risk as interconnected rather than isolated.

A spectrum of multi-hazard responses

At this stage, most of these adaptation examples are broader policies, strategies and plans. These steering mechanisms for adaptation do recognise the interconnected nature of hazards, but aren't necessarily designed to deliver multi-hazard responses. Examples include Building WA’s climate resilient future and the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. The challenge then is not recognising multi-hazard thinking in adaptation - the database shows this is already happening - but sustaining that approach through implementation across sectors and governance levels.

That is not to say that action on interrelated hazards doesn't occur. The West Beach Parks dune restoration project, for example, was designed with multiple hazards in mind by addressing coastal erosion, storm surge and extreme wind impacts as an interconnected system. But examples such as this are rare, reflecting the current emphasis on strategic direction.

International best practice of sustaining multi-hazard thinking

International best practice offers a way to consider how multi-hazard thinking can progress in Australia's adaptation approach. Best-practice adaptation takes a systems approach, ensuring that responses across sectors and places reinforce one another. This is not practicable without coordination across sectors and all levels of government. It is, however, more often described in frameworks than delivered in practice.

The Netherlands offers an example of what evolving multi-hazard long-term responses can look like. Running since 2007, the Dutch Delta Programme addresses coastal flooding, river flooding and drought as an interconnected system rather than separate problems. It links flood risk management, freshwater supply and spatial planning through multi-level governance. Water boards, regional authorities and national bodies coordinate planning and investment decisions together, with a high level of public trust and collective action. This includes activities that join nature-based solutions and water management with spatial planning to address growing risks from temperature extremes, wetter winters and sea-level rise. The Delta programme also includes funding for cross-hazard adaptation projects from green bonds issued by the National Waterboard Bank, demonstrating how dedicated funding instruments designed for multi-hazard outcomes can sustain integrated adaptation approaches over time.

What this means for policymakers in Australia

Our findings, informed by international best practice, provide useful guidance for implementing the NAP and identifying evidence-based priorities for progress. As efforts move towards action, we highlight three important considerations for adaptation in Australia.

First, effective multi-hazard adaptation requires cross-agency collaboration. Institutional arrangements that maintain separate hazard-focused responsibilities can create blind spots and undermine coordinated responses. In practice, this could include joint risk registers, shared exposure maps, or interagency units to plan and fund cross‑cutting adaptation projects.

Second, reporting frameworks that capture multi-hazard outcomes would better reflect how responses generate multiple co-benefits, providing a more accurate picture of adaptation progress and stronger incentives for investments in adaptation.

Finally, climate risk assessments would serve policy better if they moved from the analysis of single risks based on model outputs to incorporate real-world impact scenarios informed by the practitioners who must manage them.

There are promising signs already. For example, the proposed NSW Climate Change and Natural Hazards SEPP aims to establish a consistent approach to assessing climate risk and to provide an all‑hazards approach to planning.

Having a strong focus on multi-hazard and systems thinking will help turn adaptation plans into lasting, effective action.

Sophie Bagot Jewitt is an Associate Research Fellow in Climate Adaptation at the University of Melbourne.

Sarah Boulter is Associate Professor of Climate Adaptation at the University of Tasmania.

Jon Barnett is Professor in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Melbourne University.

Contributions: This piece is written as part of a project funded by the Australian Government under the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Climate Systems Hub. This project draws on key work with the NESP enabling best-practice adaptation project with key contributions from Tia Brullo and Elissa Waters.

Image credit: Canva