Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the process of collective leadership in emergency management organisations. More specifically, the authors investigate the conditions that enable or prevent collective leadership amongst key actors in the emergency management network in bushfire investigations. We also examine how chief investigators facilitate the conditions to effectively distribute leadership and the role of social networks within this process.

A qualitative case study approach was undertaken, and 18 semi-structured interviews were carried out with chief investigators, 6 at each of three agencies in Australia. A framework for understanding collective leadership (Friedrich et al., 2016) was used to examine key leadership constructs, baseline leadership and outcomes relative to bushfire investigations.

Findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of collective leadership at the network level of bushfire investigations. There is mixed evidence of collective leadership within bushfire investigation departments, with the Arson Squad being the only government agency to engage in collective leadership. The authors found evidence that government bureaucracy and mandated protocols inhibited the ability of formal leaders to distribute leadership, gauge a clear understanding of the level of skill and expertise amongst chief investigators and poor communication that inhibited knowledge of investigations.

The study was limited to three bushfire investigative agencies. A future study will be carried out with other stakeholders, such as fire investigators and firefighters in the field.

For the government, emergency management agencies and other stakeholders, a key enabler of collective leadership within the emergency management network is the presence of a formal leader within a network. That leader has the authority and political ability to distribute leadership to other experts.

The paper contributes to developing a better understanding of the efficacy and challenges associated with the application of collective leadership theory in a complex government bureaucracy. There are positive implications for the safety of firefighters, the protection of the broader community, their properties and livestock.

The authors address the lack of literature on effective leadership processes amongst emergency management agencies. The paper contributes to extending collective leadership theory by unpacking the processes through which leadership is distributed to team members and the role of institutions (i.e. fire investigation bureaucracy) on social networks within this integrative process. The authors provide new insights into the practice of collective leadership in complex bureaucratic organisations.

The purpose of this study is to identify strengths and weaknesses in knowledge sharing between related post-bushfire investigative agencies. Based on this study, such a sharing of knowledge is essential to enhance collaboration amongst practitioners in the reduction and management of the risk of bushfires.

The authors use a case study methodology; the research design is based on comparative analysis of six post-bushfire investigative departments in Italy and Australia (Victoria). A total of 44 bushfire investigators were interviewed between 2012 and 2013, across the two countries. Using focus groups and face-to-face interviews, the extent and quality of intra- and interagency knowledge sharing is analysed.

Despite the desire to collaborate, there are three main conditions that prevent an effective interagency collaboration within the bushfire investigation network, namely, separation, unidirectionality and interpersonal disengagement. This study finds that knowledge sharing suffers from a missing “feedback system” culture, where agencies give each other feedback with strictly bureaucratic purposes, rather than create an ongoing learning mechanism that develops after every investigation. At agency level, we also find that, sharing investigative knowledge and experience through daily and planned meetings is a standard practice to police members; but this is not found in the fire agencies. When made cross-country comparisons between Australia and Italy, the existence of common courses, joint manuals and the sharing of human resources witnessed in Australia (Victoria) is something that would benefit Italian agencies still trapped in a competitive and jurisdictional mindset. At the same time, Australian agencies might want to reconsider the separation between bushfire suppression and investigation, a distinction that has been made clear in Italy through the creation of full-time bushfire investigator positions.

This paper contributes to the improvement of interagency collaboration through the development of an investigative “social knowledge”. It reinforces the assumption that, to reduce and effectively manage the risk of bushfires, a combined effort from different stakeholders involved in forensic investigation is necessary.

Given the lack of research undertaken in the area of bushfire investigation, the current paper represents a unique piece of work. It is unusual, not only in identifying the current issues within the bushfire investigation network but also in providing agencies with theoretical and practical insights on how to reduce the extremely high number of bushfires and their risks.

Of all the deaths associated with disasters, bushfires account for 40% of these fatalities. The resulting fatalities are consequent upon householders’ decision-making, leading to late or non-evacuation from at-risk communities. However, while decision-making is a function of risk perception, this paper aims to investigate householders’ perceptions of bushfire risks following the catastrophic Black Summer bushfires of 2019/2020.

An inductive research approach was adopted. Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit qualitative data from southeastern NSW, Australia householders. The data were collected via face-to-face and online Zoom. Each interview was recorded, transcribed using Otter.AI and thematically analyzed with NVivo 12 Pro (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2019). In addition, inter-rater reliability was done by engaging an independent researcher to code the de-identified data independently. The codes were cross-checked for reliability and adjusted where necessary.

It was found that bushfire risk perceptions were high among the householders in bushfire at-risk communities following the 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires. High levels of perceptions were recorded among the participants regarding the likelihood of bushfire occurrence, concern for bushfires, severity of bushfires and vulnerability to bushfire threats.

The study’s results do not reflect all householders in the southeastern part of NSW. It was limited to 30 householders who indicated their intentions to participate and are living in the study area. Therefore, future studies should be undertaken with more participants from broader geographical areas, including emergency responders like firefighters, recovery officers and non-government organizations in charge of recovery operations. This study will add to the prioritization of risk perceptions.

All else being equal, elevated bushfire risk perceptions among participants can potentially decrease the fatalities linked with bushfires and their subsequent ripple effects. This holds particularly true when residents opt for early self-evacuation from at-risk communities.

The paper contributes to developing a better understanding of the bushfire risk perceptions underlying the evacuation decision-making of the residents in bushfire at-risk communities in south-eastern NSW of Australia.

The paper contributes to the existing knowledge on bushfire risks by providing insights into residents’ perceptions after the catastrophic 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires. As a qualitative study, it describes bushfire risk perceptions on four themes: likelihood, concern, severity and vulnerability, which is uncommon in many bushfire studies.

The purpose of this research is to investigate Australian property valuers' identification and consideration of physical risks to properties in valuation practice. The research further explores valuers' considerations of climate change-related risks.

The research approach comprised an online survey of Australian valuers who were members of the Australian Property Institute. The online survey included structured and unstructured questions to explore types and extent of risk investigations in valuation practice.

The analysis reflects that while valuers easily identified and engaged with physical risks, there is a lack of understanding of, and engagement with, climate change risks. This supports the need for better information sources and guidance to inform valuers of climate change risks per se, as well as the development of specific mechanisms for consideration of such risks to be included in valuation processes, practices and reports.

The research is limited by the small sample size achieved due to the timing of the survey deployment, which occurred during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia. Thus, the findings are not necessarily representative of the Australian valuation profession, but they do provide indications of current approaches to risk identification in practice and the need for more guidance in relation to climate change risks.

This research identifies that more support, guidance, information and tools, as well as awareness-raising, are required to enable valuers to accurately identify all risks affecting a property.

The research provides a snapshot of current understandings of physical risk identification in valuation practice. As investors and other organisations integrate and build up their analysis of climate risks to their portfolios and organisations, this research indicates that valuers also need to be aware of changing market assessment of physical and climate risks associated with property for consideration in valuation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the level of physical preparation for bushfire among Victorian residents in established high risk bushfire locations, and to assess whether these levels of preparation changed over time.

Data were analysed from a telephone survey among Victorian residents (n=614-629) living in high risk bushfire locations over a three-year period (2012-2014). The survey measured residents’ bushfire awareness, knowledge, planning, preparation and engagement with bushfire services. This paper focusses on the extent to which respondents undertook physical preparatory bushfire activities over the three-year period using: first, principal components analysis to generate a single preparation variable by identifying a smaller number of uncorrelated variables (or principal components) from a larger set of data, second, analysis of variance to assess differences in preparation scores between years, and third, Tukey’s honest significant difference test to confirm where the differences occurred between groups.

Results indicated only moderate levels of physical preparation for bushfires amongst respondents. The activities that respondents rated the lowest were: “having protective covers for windows” and “having firefighting equipment to protect the house”. A significant difference in total preparation scores over time was observed, F(2, 1,715)=6.159, p<0.005, with lower scores in 2012 compared with 2013 and 2014 scores.

This study found some marginal improvements in levels of physical bushfire preparation from 2012 to 2014. However, the results indicate only moderate levels of preparation overall, despite respondents living in established high risk locations.

This study provides evidence for the current levels of preparedness in high risk bushfire communities, and emphasises the need for future initiatives to focus on specific bushfire preparation activities but also to consider the broader range of interventions that are likely to contribute to desired safety outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and critique frameworks of communication in Australian bushfire management. Achieving bushfire preparedness is a complex process that centres on meaningful communication and relationships between fire emergency agencies and the residents at risk. However, the practice of bushfire communication in Australia might better be described as bricoleur-like, applying and adapting whatever is at hand from the broader media panoply, rather than involving a more deliberative and comprehensively planned approach to preparedness.

This paper builds on different frameworks of communication, beyond the traditional transmission and power models, to establish alternative ways in which communication may take place in bushfire preparedness. It is built from coupling theoretical and social science approaches to communication and through interviews and fieldwork in four states across Australia. The aggregation of these data became the basis to examine how communication was taking place among these constituents.

Communication as transmission still remains dominant from the perspective where expertise is marshaled among fire agency specialists and disseminated to the public. Communication as power highlights that the persistence of the transmission process can reinforce power dynamics, diminishing empowerment, participation and capacity-building for change by the community. Recognising the importance for understanding audiences, communication as marketing pays closer attention to attitudes to influence behaviour. Finally, communication as community elaborates the conversational aspects of knowledge flow, through social networks, bringing a particular focus to bear on the greater need for community agency.

The authors put forward these frameworks as ways to analyse, critique and propose different ways that communication can, and does, occur, resulting in different kinds of interaction and impact. The authors argue that an awareness of such frameworks is significant in assisting the communities and fire authorities in bushfire preparedness.

The purpose of this paper is to identify resourcing challenges that face housing rebuild following the 2009 Victorian “Black Saturday” bushfires in Australia and to examine the impacts of resource shortages on longer term community recovery.

The research methodology included a longitudinal study which consists of a questionnaire survey, field‐based interviews and observations to track trends evident in the survey.

A total of 28 months after the bushfires, reconstruction in the worst‐affected area, the Shire of Murrindindi, was proceeding slowly despite the institutions and procedures set up for recovery. This slow reconstruction was due to the unavailability of building resources. Changed Building Standards, increased building markets outside the bushfire zone, lack of economic incentives, combined with home owners’ socio‐economic vulnerabilities, created a chain of impacts on households’ ability to get resources.

The evidence in this paper points to emergent resource issues that impeded recovery progress in the bushfire zone. These issues primarily come from technical decisions on building controls, economic conditions, and risk perceptions of construction professionals. Findings from this longitudinal study will inform the recovery planning of government agencies in future events.

This paper makes the case for a new approach to looking at resourcing problems following a major disaster. This study demonstrates that recovery planning needs to include a resource perspective which explains both impacts of recovery polices on resource availability and impacts of resourcing dynamics on the wider recovery environment.

This research investigated Australian property valuers' identification and consideration of physical climate change risks in valuation practice.

Thirty Australian valuer members of the Australian Property Institute from a variety of specialisations were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews explored climate change risks and the extent of risk investigation and consideration in valuation practice. The analysis utilised the Moser and Luers (2008) climate risk preparedness framework as a lens to evaluate current valuation practice in Australia.

The analysis reflects that while physical risks are easily identified and engaged with by valuers, correspondingly, there is a lack of understanding of and engagement with, climate change risks. This supports the need for better information sources and guidance to inform valuers of climate change risks and the development of specific mechanisms for the consideration of such risks to be included in valuation processes, practices and reports.

The research was limited by its sample size and qualitative approach. Therefore, the research is not a representative opinion of the Australian profession; however, the analysis provides the perspective of a range of valuers from across Australia with different valuation specialisations.

This research has established that valuers have the potential to be prepared to address climate change in their professional capacity, as described by Moser and Luers (2008). However, they are constrained by information communication, access and detail and subsequent market awareness of information on climate change risk exposure on properties. There is a need for further support, guidance, information and tools, as well as awareness-raising, to enable valuers to accurately identify and reflect all risks affecting a property in the process of valuation.

This research provides the first investigation into the consideration of climate change in valuation practice. Property stakeholders—owners, investors, financiers and occupiers—are escalating their climate change risk analysis and reporting for property portfolios and organisations. This research suggests that valuers also need to be aware of the changing dynamics of market reporting and decision-making related to climate change risks to ensure appropriate reflection in valuation practice.

Post-disaster research presents particular challenges for the qualitative researcher due to the wider contextual demands of media attention, public debates and intense scrutiny of policy and service delivery. It highlights the importance of reflexive practice to identify and address any unintended influences on the research processes and outcomes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper the authors present three case studies of post-bushfire research to demonstrate how the authors adopted a reflexive approach to address external pressures on the conduct and presentation of the research.

There are various types of reflexivity identified in the literature to identify influences on the research participant and the research findings arising, for example, from the way the researcher shapes the research findings (personal reflexivity), and the influence of the research process (epistemological reflexivity). In this paper the authors argue for a different reflexivity: one that is political and has a direct influence on the researcher.

Adoption of political reflexivity is an important tool in post-disaster research to ensure that external influences do not undermine the integrity of the research processes, findings and dissemination.

The importance of reflexivity in research is well recognized as a means of addressing power and unintended influences on research participants and research processes. The authors introduce the notion of political reflexivity to this debate in recognition of the need to address the potential for research findings and reports to be compromised by political agendas.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation. The study reported in this paper is part of ongoing research concerned with developing a methodology to improve the outcomes of resource availability for projects in post‐disaster environments. This study attempts to address the following questions: what factors impinge upon the availability of resources in a disaster recovery project and what are the common resource availability determinants across different recovery environments?

The method of analysis in this investigation is a comparative case study. The researchers took part in disaster field trips to Indonesia, China and Australia during their recovery from natural disasters. By using case studies and a triangulation method, critical factors that affected resource availability in the three examined countries were identified and compared.

A comparative analysis shows that specific cultural elements, the socio‐economic environment and the political agenda in the three countries influenced their resourcing problems and the solutions they adopted. Despite different resourcing approaches in the three cases, competence of construction professionals, and government response and intervention were identified as common determinants to resourcing disaster recovery projects.

The research findings contribute to the project management methodology to post‐disaster reconstruction.

From this research, decision makers and construction practitioners can have a clearer direction for improving their resourcing effort in a post‐disaster situation. This study provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation, with a view to enhancing their capability of managing disaster recovery projects.

A comparative analysis of three cases provides a multi‐perspective view of the resourcing issues in a post‐disaster situation. As many problems are faced in disaster recovery projects, resource availability intrinsically links to chronic conditions of vulnerability in existence in the broader social system prior to a disaster. The five aspects of resourcing discussed in the paper show the key areas of recovery planning in relation to resource availability.

In large and complex disaster recovery operations, the availability of resources is bound to be limited. Identified resourcing problems are likely to be universal and can be anticipated and pre‐planned for, irrespective of the environment when a disaster happens. The paper provides a basis for the construction professionals and stakeholders to understand the critical factors influencing resource availability in a post‐disaster situation.