Stay and defend or leave early: Policy problems and experiences during the 2003 Victorian bushfires

Australian state and territory fire authorities advise residents to make a decision to prepare, stay and defend their properties from bushfires or leave well before the fire arrives in their area. The ‘Stay and defend or leave early’ policy is underpinned by strong evidence that well-prepared houses can be successfully defended and that late evacuation is a dangerous strategy. This paper presents the results of a study of the policy's implementation during the 2003 bushfires in North East Victoria and East Gippsland. Results suggest that despite high levels of awareness and support for the policy, there is some confusion over what it means to ‘stay and defend’ and ‘leave early’.     

Communities and bushfire hazard in Australia: More questions than answers

The issue of communities and their exposure to bushfire hazard is highly topical internationally. There is a perceived trend of greater exposure to bushfire risk which is exacerbated by increased levels of building in fire-prone areas or peri-urban regions. There is a need to clarify what we understand to be peri-urban regions, and how we conceptualise and describe the communities that reside in them, in order that efficient and effective services are provided. However, more questions arise for us. For example: Where are these communities located? What do we know about the people who live there? What are the implications for bushfire mitigation? Despite being problematic, locality remains important to the understanding of communities, bushfire hazard and delivery of services.     

Natural disasters in Australia

The history of natural hazards in Australia and their physical, economic and social consequences are discussed in this paper. The lack of any national programme for hazard mitigation is identified, alongside an overview of Australia as a country where major disasters are accepted as a part of everyday life.     

100-years of Australian bushfire property losses: Is the risk significant and is it increasing?

This study examines the bushfire (wildland fire) risk to the built environment in Australia. The most salient result is that the annual probability of building destruction has remained almost constant over the last century despite large demographic and social changes as well as improvements in fire fighting technique and resources. Most historical losses have taken place in a few extreme fires which if repeated are likely to overwhelm even the most professional of fire services. We also calculate the average annual probability of a random home on the urban–bushland interface being destroyed by a bushfire to be of the order of 1 in 6500, a factor 6.5 times lower than the ignition probability of a structural house fire. Thus on average and if this risk was perceived rationally, the incentive for individual homeowners to mitigate and reduce the bushfire danger even further is low. This being the case and despite predictions of an increasing likelihood of conditions favouring bushfires under global climate change, we suspect that building losses due to bushfires are unlikely to alter materially in the near future.     

Stay and defend or leave early: Policy problems and experiences during the 2003 Victorian bushfires

Australian state and territory fire authorities advise residents to make a decision to prepare, stay and defend their properties from bushfires or leave well before the fire arrives in their area. The ‘Stay and defend or leave early’ policy is underpinned by strong evidence that well-prepared houses can be successfully defended and that late evacuation is a dangerous strategy. This paper presents the results of a study of the policy's implementation during the 2003 bushfires in North East Victoria and East Gippsland. Results suggest that despite high levels of awareness and support for the policy, there is some confusion over what it means to ‘stay and defend’ and ‘leave early’.     

Using a worldview lens to examine complex policy issues: a historical review of bushfire management in the South West of Australia

The scale and intensity of bushfire activity in Australia is likely to increase as a result of climate change. Effective bushfire management policy measures are therefore essential to minimise the interrelated social, environmental and economic impacts of fire in the landscape. This paper presents a historical review of bushfire management in the South West of Australia (SW): a bushfire prone and biodiverse region. Using a worldview framework to analyse key policy documents and literature, the paper demonstrates that the evolution of complex policy sectors such as bushfire management, is influenced not only by scientific and technical developments but also as a result of changing worldviews. Adapting the Integrative Worldview Framework (IWF), seven worldview categories that dominated particular periods of history in Australia are presented. These worldview categories are then used to examine the evolution of bushfire management practice, policy and institutional arrangements relevant to the SW. The argument presented herein is that a better understanding of worldviews and how they influence complex and contentious policy fields such as bushfire management, is useful for policy analysis, reflexive practice and research. The paper suggests an integrative worldview approach, which enables opportunities for exchanges and constructive conflict between stakeholders and agencies with diverse worldviews, could contribute to creating more sustainable bushfire management. Finally, it is argued that opportunities for Indigenous and Western worldview exchanges in the bushfire management sector, through collaborative knowledge partnerships could assist the sector in both management practice and policy formulation.     

Bushfire simulators and analysis in Australia: insights into an emerging sociotechnical practice

The present context of escalating environmental risks places increased pressure and importance on our technical ability to predict and mitigate the potential consequences and occurrence of major natural hazards such as bushfire (or ‘wildfire’). Over the past decade, bushfire prediction in Australia, as in many other fire-prone countries, has increasingly come to involve both trained fire behaviour analysts and complex computer-based two-dimensional bushfire simulation models. During this transitional moment in bushfire management, there is a clear need to better understand the ways in which such predictive technologies and practitioners influence how we anticipate, encounter and manage this natural hazard and its effects. In this paper, the authors seek to prepare the ground for studies of the social dimensions of bushfire prediction by investigating how simulators and predictive practitioners have been mobilised and represented in Australia to date. The paper concludes by posing several questions that bushfire practitioners, policy-makers and researchers alike in Australia and elsewhere will need to address as our flammable future emerges.     

Y2K—a humanitarian disaster? Why not?

Australian bushfire agencies have a position that people in the path of a fire should either prepare, stay and defend their properties, or leave the area well before the fire front arrives. The position is based largely on observations that evacuating at the last minute is often fatal and that, generally, a key factor in house survival during a wildfire is the presence of people in the building. In practice, full implementation of the position has been difficult for a range of reasons.

As part of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) research effort <www.bushfirecrc.com>, our project is examining the evidence base for this position and aims to suggest ways of improving implementation.

We have found that the available evidence, which goes back some 60 yr, strongly supports the Australian position. The position is supported on the grounds of both improved safety and reduced property loss. The evidence also shows that the most dangerous option—and the cause of most fatalities—is last minute evacuation.     

Landscape fires as social disasters: An overview of ‘the bushfire problem’

The ‘landscape’, ‘bushfire’ or ‘forest-fire’ problem is exemplified by the destruction of homes and human lives by landscape fires raging out of control. The ‘problem’ involves a series of landscapes (e.g. wildland and suburb), a series of systems (e.g. biophysical system and environmental-effects system), and a series of time phases (e.g. planning phase). It is a multi-stakeholder, multi-variable, multi-scale problem. Land uses, like ‘farmland’, imply a set of specific assets and, therefore, particular perceptions of losses. In all land-use designations, at any one point, fire-proneness may be seen as a function of exposure to ignition sources (embers, burning brands or flame radiation and flame contact) and the ease of ignition. The landscape-fire problem has multiple partial ‘solutions’, not just one overall solution, and these involve social governance, land management (public and private), suppression capacity and personal preparedness. The problem needs to be addressed at multiple temporal and spatial scales in an integrated fashion for the outcome to be of maximal benefit. There will always be a residual risk of severe fire occurrence. Minimisation of residual risk requires effective land management, recurrent funding and the perpetual vigilance of all parties.