Thousands of people in southern Queensland impacted by the 2021-22 flooding received practical assistance from a government fund, research has found.
An independent evaluation by researchers from The University of Queensland and University of Melbourne and co-funded by Natural Hazards Research Australia and the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, examined how the $741 million Resilient Homes Fund (RHF) improved flood-risk awareness, drove the uptake of resilience measures and strengthened community recovery.
Program leader Professor Paula Jarzabkowski from UQ’s Business School said more than 6,500 homeowners registered for the fund, a joint Queensland and Australian Government initiative.
“Programs like RHF can make a real difference in helping people recover from disasters and reduce their risk in the future,” Professor Jarzabkowski said.
“We found many homeowners not only improved the physical safety of their homes, but also experienced broader financial, social and emotional benefits.”
The report assessed the impact of 3 key measures; voluntary home buy-backs, home raising and resilient retrofits.
“As of December 2025, there were 685 Buy-Back contracts settled, 341 Home Raising grants and 805 Resilient Retrofit grants completed,” Professor Jarzabkowski said.
“Buy-backs are very effective because they remove people from harm’s way but importantly they also repurpose the land so future residents are not exposed to flood on the same site.”
Professor Benjamin Avanzi from University of Melbourne said while retrofitting will not prevent houses being flooded, when implemented correctly, it should allow residents to clean up and get back into their homes more quickly.
Associate Professor Matthew Mason from UQ’s School of Civil Engineering said improving flood resilience is challenging because no 2 homes or homeowners are the same.
“Raising a house can be very effective in reducing flood damage and loss, but some homes, like slab-on-ground were not suitable,” Dr Mason said.
The evaluation also considered the broader social and emotional context of recovery, and how it affected participation in the program.
“Many homeowners were recovering from trauma and faced difficult decisions about their homes,” Professor Jarzabkowski said.
“Some eligible people were not able to take up house raising as it’s structurally complex and also leaves you with flights of stairs to climb to get into your home – that’s physically beyond some people.”
The researchers said the findings highlight the need to balance rapid recovery with long-term adaptation, noting extended timeframes improved participation.
“The program was initially intended to last for 2 years and that’s fine for recovery, but resilient housing is really beyond recovery – it’s about adaptation,” Professor Jarzabkowski said.
“It is absolutely critical that we learn from this significant investment and how to deliver such programs effectively, at scale and equitably, and how these measures hold up over time and to future floods.”
Read the full report at Natural Hazards Research Australia .
