Search results

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 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.

After the catastrophic 2009 bushfires in the state of Victoria, Australia, the State Government provided information and advice, short-term and temporary accommodation as well as financial assistance to bushfire-affected communities. A tension developed between quickly rebuilding housing and re-establishing known social and economic networks versus a slower and more deliberative process that focuses on long-term community outcomes. Whilst there was a widespread assumption that quick rebuilding would be beneficial, resulting in immediate pressure to do so, it became evident that many people were not prepared to, or even did not want to rebuild. Thus it became important to provide time and support for people to consider their options away from the immediate pressures to rebuild that are often inherent in post-disaster recovery processes. This became known as “holding the space” and included the introduction of interim supports such as building temporary villages and other supports which enable people to achieve appropriate interim accommodation without having to rebuild immediately. However, even two years after the bushfires a significant proportion of people remained undecided whether they wanted to rebuild or not. The post-bushfire experience pointed to a number of lessons including the importance of appropriate timing of post-disaster activities, careful targeting of financial assistance, need for developing better and lower cost interim housing options and pre-impact planning. Given the complex nature of rebuilding following a disaster, design professionals should focus not just on the final house, but also look at housing options that blur the distinction between temporary and permanent. Their designs should be quick to build, offer a good quality of life, be affordable for most and be flexible in design for future use.

Information on the impact of flooding is fundamental to mitigating flood risk in residential property. This paper aims to provide insight into the seller disclosure of flood risk and buyer behaviour in the absence of mandated seller disclosure.

This paper adopts a case study approach to critically evaluate the matrix of flood information available for buyers purchasing residential property in Brisbane, Queensland. This paper uses big data analytic techniques to extract and analyse internet data from online seller agents and buyer platforms to gain an understanding of buyer awareness and consideration of flood risk in the residential property market.

Analysis of property marketing data demonstrates that seller agents voluntarily disclose flood impact only in periods where a flooding event is anticipated and is limited to asserting a property is free of flood risk. Analysis of buyer commentary demonstrates that buyers are either unaware of flood information or are discounting the risk of flood in favour of other property and locational attributes when selecting residential property.

This research suggests that improved and accessible government-provided flood mapping tools are not enhancing buyers’ understanding and awareness of flood risk. Accordingly, it is recommended that mandatory disclosure be introduced in Queensland so that buyers are more able to manage risk and investment decisions before the purchase of residential property.

This paper contributes to existing literature on raising community awareness and understanding of natural disaster risks and makes a further contribution in identifying mandatory disclosure as a mechanism to highlight the risk of flooding and inform residential property purchasers.

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 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.

Modern emergency management policy is built around the concepts of shared responsibility and the development of resilient communities. Drawing on the Australian context, this chapter argues that giving effect to these policy directions will require negotiation between stakeholders and an inevitable trade in values, interests, and resources. The chapter identifies an apparent contradiction at the heart of modern disaster management: that improvements in establishing professional emergency and risk management services may have reduced the capacity of individuals and local communities to take responsibility for disaster preparation and response.

This paper aims to propose a set of principles for implementation of successful post-disaster social recovery in-line with the concept of “building back better” (BBB).

A set of preliminary principles for post-disaster social recovery was established from literature review. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires was chosen as a case study to examine the implemented social recovery approaches and impacts.

Analysis of the literature and case study have led to the creation of a set of modified BBB principles for social recovery under two categories, first, community support and, second, community involvement. Key principles under first category include: providing personalized support for affected families, specialized support for vulnerable groups and improved psychological support; building community cohesion; and keeping the community informed. Key principles under second category include: involving the community in designing and implementing recovery projects; providing support to the community; and maintaining full transparency.

This study focusses on one case study. The appropriateness and applicability of the proposed principles can be further tested using a range of different case studies in both developed and developing countries.

The principles presented should be incorporated into post-disaster social recovery programmes implemented by governments.

This research takes a unique look at drawing from international experiences to form a set of practical and universal principles to aid post-disaster social recovery as an important part of BBB.

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 the paper is to inform stakeholders involved in post‐disaster reconstruction how to incorporate Build Back Better (BBB) principles when implementing structural design improvements to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in the rebuilding process.

Literature review was used to establish BBB principles required for post‐disaster structural changes. The application of these principles was then tested in the Indian Ocean Tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka, and the Victorian Bushfires in Australia. Qualitative data were collected in each country by conducting interviews with stakeholders from governmental authorities, and non‐governmental and community‐level organisations who were directly involved in recovery activities along with other documentation. Results were compared to understand how/to what extent BBB principles were applied and their implications, to finally determine the applicability of these principles in different environments.

Proposed BBB principles for post‐disaster structural changes from literature were grouped under: building codes and regulations, cost and time, and quality. Principles such as multi‐hazard‐based building codes, education and support for communities, long‐term funding and quality assurance through inspections were applicable in both case studies. Experiences in Australia and Sri Lanka also presented a few extra principles to add practicality based on local contextualisation. These included avoiding high‐risk lands using buy‐back/land‐swap schemes, incentives to attract skilled builders, and the use of comfortable temporary accommodation to relieve time pressures.

The study does not look into detail at the administrative, regulative and social systems which contributed towards the inability of the built environment to withstand the respective hazards. A general understanding of these systems was gained and taken into consideration when analysing the results. The findings show that despite the differences found between Australia and Sri Lanka the relevance of the principles for structural improvements remained intact.

The government, engineers and building practitioners involved in reconstruction will benefit from learning from the experiences of others, and understanding how implementing structural changes can be done more successfully by applying BBB principles.

This research takes a unique look at how BBB principles drawn from international experiences can be incorporated when implementing structural changes in post‐disaster rebuilding to further improve the outcome.