@article {bnh-8259, title = {Assessing community resilience for emergencies in local government policy - Maroondah City Council and Knox City Council}, number = {617}, year = {2021}, month = {10/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Exposure to hazards may result in emergencies or disasters that have the potential to overwhelm the capacity of communities to respond and recover effectively. In terms of natural hazards, an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events linked to climate change is expected to result in greater disaster losses in the future. Resilience-based approaches have been adopted in Australia and overseas to deal with this problem.

Resilience is a term that is used across multiple disciplines, including in the physical and material sciences, psychology, ecology, environmental science and more recently, in emergency and disaster management (Alexander, D.E. 2013). Therefore, it has many definitions, several of which reflect its significance as the guiding principle for emergency and disaster management in Australia,

{\textquoteleft}Resilience is the ability of system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management{\textquoteright} (United Nations Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019), or

The definition developed for the 100 Resilient Cities Project in Melbourne:

{\textquoteleft}Resilience is the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems within a city to survive, adapt and grown no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience{\textquoteright} (Mulligan et al, 2016, p.10).

A definition of resilience has also been developed as part of the Australian Disaster Resilience Index (ADRI) project:

{\textquoteleft}Resilience is the capacity of communities to prepare for, absorb and recover from natural hazard events and to learn, adapt and transform in ways that enhance these capacities in the face of future events{\textquoteright} (Parsons, 2016 p.6).

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience was adopted in 2011 by all levels of Australian Government (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). This marked a policy shift away from an emphasis on dealing with the aftermath of disasters toward a stronger focus on disaster preparation and planning, and the reduction and management of hazards. In 2018, a National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (NDRRF)[i] (Commmonwealth of Australia, 2018) was introduced to guide disaster risk reduction activities for greater resilience. Importantly, the NDRRF deals with the increasing problem of disasters by considering the whole system and its interdependencies.\  In doing so it incorporates sustainability and climate change adaptation goals.

While State Governments play the major role in emergency management, the hazards, risks and the nature and severity of disaster impacts vary according to highly localised social, economic and environmental factors (Cutter et al, 2008). The adverse impacts from natural disasters that are invariably experienced at the local level may be sustained for many years afterwards. Local Government is the level of government that is closest to the community and, as such, it maintains a long-term commitment to managing local issues associated with emergencies and disasters. This role is integrally linked to local government{\textquoteright}s broader responsibility for the planning and provision of the majority of services and infrastructure in their constituent communities.\  There are 597 local government areas in Australia (Australian Local Government Association, 2020) with 79 in Victoria (Victorian Local Government Association, 2020.) Therefore, the services provided by local government and the policies and plans that shape them have a profound influence on the quality of life and the wellbeing of the Australian population as a whole. Local government is in a unique position to strengthen community resilience for emergencies, both through its local emergency management policies and plans and also, and perhaps more pervasively, through opportunities to positively influence the determinants of resilience through its broad range of council policies and plans.

In order to explore some of these opportunities, Yarra Ranges Council and the Maroondah and Knox City Councils asked the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC) to evaluate their policies in terms of resilience. They were seeking answers to the question: To what extent do our council policies support resilience for emergencies or disasters? This project, titled Assessing Community Resilience for Emergencies in Local Government Policies (ACRE) was developed to examine the alignment between existing local government policies and the characteristics that enable community resilience. Maroondah and Knox City Councils were chosen as case studies. As a starting-point, councils were interested in evaluating their policies in relation to the Community Reslience Framework for Emergency Management (Emergency Management Victoria, 2017), developed by the Victorian State Government.

The idea that social resilience is intrinsic to resilience for emergencies or disasters is a central message in the Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management (ibid). It provides policy guidance to encourage local government to embed resilience into its everyday activities, not only to improve the general health, wellbeing and prosperity of their communities, but as a way of highlighting how local communities can play their part in improving their ability to plan, prepare for, and to withstand and recover from adverse events.

In order to explore their full potential for strengthening resilience, councils also sought to evaluate their policies more broadly. The two councils{\textquoteright} policies were assessed against resilience information found in the academic literature. This research complements the Community Resilience Framework for Emergency Management (ibid) and adds to the body of evidence about local government{\textquoteright}s existing contribution and inherent potential to enhance community resilience for emergencies.

}, keywords = {community, council, emergencies, Local government, Policy, resilience}, issn = {617}, author = {Susan Hunt} } @article {bnh-8276, title = {Assessing community resilience for emergencies in local government policy: summary}, number = {618}, year = {2021}, month = {10/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Yarra Ranges Council, Maroondah City Council and the Knox City Council partnered with the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre to evaluate Maroondah and Knox policies to see where and how they align with and incorporate resilience. The Assessing community resilience for emergencies in local government policy (ACRE) project also highlighted some strategic issues that are potentially relevant for local government and disaster resilience policy more broadly.

All levels of the Australian Government adopted the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience in 2011 (NSDR) and its implementation is ongoing. The NSDR aims to shift national policy away from the traditional focus on disaster response toward planning and prevention to reduce the risk of natural disasters and the severity of their consequences. The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework was launched in 2020 and builds on the NSDR and references resilience.

Not only that, but a resilience-based approach will improve the {\textquoteleft}capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems within a city to survive, adapt and grow not matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience{\textquoteright} (Mulligan et al, 2016). Local government is a key partner in achieving these goals because of its proximity to the community and the array of assets, services and programs it manages that are vital to the well-being of local communities. Local councils also have a legal responsibility to develop and maintain and review policies in critical areas, including for disasters and other emergencies. This provides opportunities to build the resilience of communities by pivoting local government policies and programs toward approaches that are proven to support resilience. In order to do this, Maroondah and Knox City Councils sought, as a first step, to better understand how their existing policies are compatible with resilience, the extent to which resilience was incorporated in policies and what areas can be improved.\ 

}, keywords = {community, council, emergencies, Local government, Policy, resilience}, issn = {618}, author = {Susan Hunt} } @article {bnh-8136, title = {Capability Maturity Assessment facilitators guide}, number = {681}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Catastrophic events pose unique challenges and are inevitable. Previous reviews have highlighted gaps in Australia{\textquoteright}s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Australia has no recent experience of a catastrophe that has truly overwhelmed our society.

An essential component of planning for severe-to-catastrophic disasters is to develop an understanding of capability maturity to deliver the desired effect. Knowledge of capability gaps can then be used to enhance planning and identify alternate sources of capability.

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements stated:

Jurisdictional approaches to capacity and capability development have served fire and emergency services well in the past. However, climate and demographic changes are likely to increase the demand on fire and emergency services. The ability of individual jurisdictions to meet this demand at peak times is likely to become increasingly difficult, prompting a need for increased resource sharing. There is a need to consider capabilities nationally, and for a more consistent and connected approach to capability planning across jurisdictions.

The Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework outlines a direction to improve understanding of national capability in the context of severe-to-catastrophic disasters.

Purpose

This guide provides instructions on how to conduct a first-pass capability maturity assessment for a jurisdiction to identify capability gaps and development priorities.

Audience

This guide is directed towards those who may manage or participate in the capability maturity assessment process.

}, keywords = {assessment, Capability, Emergency management, guide, maturity, Policy, Preparedness, tool}, issn = {681}, author = {Andrew Gissing} } @article {bnh-8120, title = {Economics of natural hazards - final project report}, number = {666}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The key aim of our project was to provide evidence on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of natural hazards, in order to help hazard managers make better decisions about the allocation of resources for the mitigation of natural hazards impacts. Using the tools and materials we have created in this project, our end-users will be better equipped to estimate the tangible (market) and intangible (non-market) impacts of natural hazards and assess how mitigation investments may reduce those impacts.

With this aim in mind, our main focus has been the development of tools and materials that make it easier for natural hazards managers to estimate the value of mitigation, integrate intangible (non-market) values in economic analyses of mitigation, and evaluate the difference it makes to include non-market values. Our goal has always been to provide managers with the tools they need to be able to make better decisions and have the evidence to back up their decisions.

Our project delivered 5 key outcomes:

  1. We launched an online platform for the Value Tool for Natural Hazards (a searchable database of the best available non-market value estimates relevant to natural hazards).
  2. We conducted a non-market valuation study that filled a major knowledge gap identified in the non-market values literature (i.e. the values of cultural heritage, social disruption and mental health, and how these are affected by natural hazards) and updated the Value Tool with the data from this study.
  3. We developed the Economic Analysis Screening Tool (EAST) for the evaluation of the (market and non-market) costs and benefits of mitigation options.
  4. We created a Free Online Video Course on the economics of natural hazards, using drawings and simple examples to explain key economic concepts and how they are applied to evaluate different mitigation options.
  5. We conducted an online training course on how to use economics in natural hazards management and delivered it to 4 different groups of end-user managers and practitioners.

All outcomes of the project had a utilisation focus and were developed in conjunction with our end-users. We spent a significant amount of time understanding our end-users{\textquoteright} challenges in order to create products that can help them make better decisions using economic analysis. We used their feedback to improve the tools developed and make them more accessible.

The work from this project has been published in 4 peer-reviewed publications, 8 conference papers and technical reports, 3 posters presented at conferences, and 4 online resources (see Project Publications section in this report).

}, keywords = {analysis, EAST, economics, mitigation, Natural hazards, natural hazards management, Policy, Value Tool}, issn = {666}, author = {Veronique Florec and Abbie Rogers and David J Pannell} } @article {bnh-7227, title = {Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice}, number = {602}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Emergency Management Sector (EMS) is made up of diverse organisations, and its scope of activity spans the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) spectrum for a wide variety of hazards. This requires an array of activities that contribute to the safety and wellbeing of communities and those within their organisations. The EMS is also undergoing dynamic change, of which human diversity is one key element. The sector has recognised that it needs to better reflect the communities it works with, and that it has {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, COAG, 2011). Inclusion is seen as an essential part of this process, but policy, management and practice need further development if the sector is to achieve functioning inclusive organisations who reflect the diverse communities they serve.

Diversity and inclusion (D\&I) are different but deeply entwined. Diversity can be seen as a variety of people who have different and unique characteristics. This difference can be determined by aspects such as their cultural or social background, their age, the way they think, their physical attributes or their gender or a combination of these. Increasing diversity creates a different dynamic, and inclusion is the action that is undertaken to manage this change. It is also the tool that ensures that the increased diversity is effective in serving the organisational or community needs, and does not create a risk for the community or the organisation.\ 

Although the nature and measurement of diversity is being better recognised and understood, the management and measurement of inclusion is still evolving. This is an area of innovation where not everything will work. New approaches need to be developed and adapted to suit the myriad of different contexts throughout the sector. This has resulted in numerous D\&I programs at sectoral and organisational levels. However, the effectiveness of past and present programs, and what constitutes good management and measurement, is still emerging (Young et al., 2018).\ \ 

There is often tension between the core work of EMS organisations, as the development of D\&I is often seen as a secondary activity that is a cost to the workforce rather than an investment in the future workforce. This tension has been exacerbated by deeply entrenched cultural and institutional factors. This framework aims to provide a basis for practitioners to address these issues through a strength-based approach, which builds upon current practice and expertise in the sector.\ 

The framework has been developed in response to needs that were identified in collaboration with practitioners across the sector, which included:

The framework has been developed, tested and refined in collaboration with emergency management experts, and draws on the following reports from the project:

Diversity and inclusion is not a simple problem with easy solutions. It is a dynamic situation that requires ongoing management. This means that standard notions of success and failure can be problematic, which is why this framework focuses on what has been found to be effective.\ 

As the EMS is diverse in terms of organisational composition, capability and context, what is possible and {\textquoteleft}doable{\textquoteright} will be different for each organisation. To account for this, this framework is deliberately not prescriptive. Its aim is to support and guide practitioners to develop and integrate D\&I practice, so that it becomes accepted as part of the day-to-day activities and {\textquoteleft}how things are done{\textquoteright}.\ 

This framework will be supported by two further documents that will focus on management and measurement practices.

}, keywords = {diversity and inclusion, Emergency management, framework, Policy, practice}, issn = {602}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-7811, title = {Driving into floodwater: using data from emergency responders to inform workplace safety policy and practice}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, pages = {26-34}, abstract = {

Since 2001, approximately 45 per cent of all flood fatalities in Australia are attributed to people entering floodwater in motor vehicles. This behaviour is considered high-risk and avoidable. However, for emergency services personnel performing their duties, there may be additional pressure to take on such risks. In Victoria, the Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES) is the control agency for floods and storms and its personnel encounter floodwater frequently. At an organisational level, good workplace health and safety practices are fundamental and duty of care is of paramount importance. VICSES personnel are discouraged from driving through floodwater; an exception being when responding to life-threatening situations. Doing so exposes staff to personal harm and driving through floodwater in work vehicles can result in vehicle and equipment damage. There is also the potential for VICSES reputation damage if people observe VICSES personnel driving into floodwaters and not heeding safety advice to {\textquoteright}never drive (walk, or ride) through floodwater{\textquoteright}. This raises public safety concerns if people take similar risks. This paper presents findings from a larger study into the circumstances in which SES personnel drive through floodwater in SES or private vehicles. Outcomes from this research will inform policy, practice and training to improve safety, keep staff and equipment safe and model good practice in communities.

}, keywords = {data, Driving, emergency responders, floodwater, Policy, practice, workplace safety}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-october-2020-driving-into-floodwater-using-data-from-emergency-responders-to-inform-workplace-safety-policy-and-practice/}, author = {Mel Taylor and Tim Wiebusch and Benjamin Beccari and Katharine Haynes and Mozumdar Arifa Ahmed and Matalena Tofa} } @mastersthesis {bnh-8310, title = {Implementing disaster resilience policy in the Australian Federation}, volume = {Doctor of Philosophy}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, pages = {329}, school = {Australian National University}, address = {Canberra}, abstract = {

Australia adopted the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience in 2011. This officially set it on a path to change the attitudes and behaviours of all sectors of society to share responsibility for disaster risks. This would require a shift away from the traditional emphasis on disaster, response, relief and recovery toward prevention, preparation and planning, and risk mitigation. Eight years later, disaster resilience policy continues to be implemented at all levels of government as well as influencing resilience-based approaches in the Not-for-Profit and business sectors. Much progress has been made in disaster resilience research, especially in the area of measurement, including the development of indicators that can potentially inform evaluation of the effectiveness of disaster resilience policy. However, there is shortage of research and a lack of awareness about the significance of policy implementation and governance for achieving successful policy outcomes. This thesis seeks to address this gap and investigates whether the implementation of disaster resilience policy in Australia reflects good practice and how current practice is shaped by the characteristics of the Australian Federal (multilevel) system of government. The methodology involves three parallel linked avenues of inquiry that includes the development of a Provisional Disaster Resilience Policy Implementation Framework (the Provisional framework) to guide implementation, the application of the Provisional Framework to a number of case studies of implementation to identify principles and practices relevant to multi-level governance systems that will enhance disaster resilience, and the evaluation of the Provisional framework to incorporate these findings.

A key research outcome is the Disaster Resilience Policy Implementation Framework that confirms the inclusion of the Policy Domains of Social Capital, Community Competence, Economic Development, Information and Communication, with the addition of a fifth and complementary Policy Domain, Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an organising principle that is closely associated with federalism and states that {\textquoteleft}that any particular task should be decentralized to the lowest level of governance with the capacity to conduct it satisfactorily{\textquoteright} (Marshall, G.R., 2008, {\textquoteleft}Nesting, subsidiarity, and communitybased environmental governance beyond the local scale{\textquoteright}. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1) p.80). This has implications for practice that have fundamental regard to the operation of disaster resilience within a system consisting of component parts that must work together to synergise disaster resilience efforts. For this system to work effectively activities must be coordinated using effective feedback mechanisms and facilitated by open and shared access to information, devolved to the appropriate level with approaches that nurture capacity, and with roles and responsibilities that are negotiated and clearly defined through an authentic process of stakeholder engagement.

}, keywords = {disaster, governance, Policy, resilience}, url = { http://hdl.handle.net/1885/216714}, author = {Susan Hunt} } @article {bnh-5955, title = {The value of disaster research: a review of the literature}, number = {505}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Increasingly, funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources; that it informs policy and practice; or to justify the provision of current and future funding. The value of research is measured by assessing the extent to which research has impact. Research impact is defined as {\textquotedblleft}a demonstrable contribution that research makes to the economy, society, culture, national security, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond contributions to academia{\textquotedblright} (Alla et al.). These value-outcomes are achieved via the pathways of knowledge generation, capacity building, creation of scientific methods, researcher and end-user network collaborations, and policymaking support. Bushfire and natural hazard research evidence is utilised by emergency and fire agencies, governments, policymakers, and householders and landowners.

Research impact assessment is undertaken with the aim of addressing advocacy, analysis, accountability and allocation. It is also a valuable tool for use whilst planning research to ensure a greater impact. A major problem associated with research impact assessment is that of attribution: it is extremely difficult to assign causality for any outcome to a specific piece of research. This difficulty is exacerbated by the usually large time lag between research findings and policy impact, behaviour change, or change in environment or economy.

Various frameworks have been developed to assess the impact of research; whilst the majority of those reviewed were developed for the healthcare sector, there are more broad frameworks which have evolved to encompass a breadth of research areas and level of research. Impact has generally been categorised as economic (direct influence on the economy of the researcher, agency, population, or government as well as knowledge, market and network spill overs); academic (influence within academia, researcher and end-user collaborations, capacity building, training and leadership); and social or societal (a broad category including social values, national security, influence on policy and decision making).

Economic impact has largely been measured using cost-benefit analysis or a return on investment approach (including a social return on investment). Over the effect life cycle, public research is valued at 3 to 8 times the initial investment. Median annual rates of return are between 20\% and 50\% but this varies considerably between sectors. (Georghiou (2015)) . At an aggregate level, the return on investment in Australian disaster research has been estimated at between $1.17 to $1.40 for each dollar invested (Access Economics, 2003, Access Economics, 2008) . As most of the research within the natural hazard sector does not produce goods or services which pass through a market, a non-market method of valuing outcomes is required. The application of public value theory has created methodologies including public value mapping to understand the non-economic and non-scientific goals of research; that is, the core values (public values) of the research.

There is no specific framework for assessing the value of research in the bushfire and wildfire context, however adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) may be helpful in achieving appropriate impact measurement.\ 

}, keywords = {cost-effective, economics, Emergency management, Natural disasters, Policy, risk management}, issn = {505}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-4584, title = {Using a worldview lens to examine complex policy issues: a historical review of bushfire management in the South West of Australia}, journal = {The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability }, year = {2018}, month = {01/2018}, abstract = {

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.

}, keywords = {Australia., bushfire management, governance, Policy, sustainability, worldviews.}, doi = {10.1080/13549839}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13549839.2018.1467390?scroll=top\&needAccess=true}, author = {Simone Ruane} } @article {bnh-2359, title = {Better use and management of levees: reducing flood risk in a changing climate}, journal = {Environmental Reviews}, volume = {23}, year = {2015}, month = {02/2015}, abstract = {

Many nations rely on dykes and levees to mitigate flood risk. However, a myriad of problems has prompted views that levees are ultimately maladaptive and should be used as a measure of last resort. This leads to questions not only about the place of levees in future flood risk management, but also whether anything can be done to reduce their impacts. A detailed review of flood events from Australia, China, the Netherlands, and the USA was used to develop a case study for each country. Case studies present existing levee problems, future flood threats, and national strategies to address them. These were used as a basis to analyse the transferability of adaptive flood approaches. While many countries are attempting to restore floodplain storage, thereby reducing their reliance on levees, others are increasing their investment in levee construction. This review explores factors that affect the transferability of adaptive approaches, including issues, such as problem recognition, affordability, and program delivery. It was found that countries vary in their ability to recognise levee problems, and the level at which decisions are made influences the likelihood of adaptive solutions being adopted. Analysis suggests that federal systems face particular challenges and their capacity to adopt adaptive approaches may be impaired if institutional barriers are not addressed. Regardless of the overall approach to manage flood risk, the experiences of all case study countries offer some broadly applicable lessons for improving the use and management of levees, reducing their adverse impacts, and improving the integration of natural flood mitigation.

}, keywords = {Flood, Policy}, doi = {10.1139/er-2014-0060}, url = {http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/eprint/JuAnSyApuH5P9DqD9WWD/full$\#$.VjrE2LcrKUk}, author = {Caroline Wenger} } @article {BF-4274, title = {Environmental circumstances surrounding bushfire fatalities in Australia 1901{\textendash}2011}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Policy}, year = {2013}, month = {11/2013}, pages = {1-12}, chapter = {1}, abstract = {This paper describes the development and analysis of a dataset covering bushfire related life loss in Australia over the past 110 years (1901{\textendash}2011). Over this time period 260 bushfires have been associated with a total of 825 known civilian and firefighter fatalities. This database was developed to provide an evidence base from which an Australian national fire danger rating system can be developed and has benefits in formalising our understanding of community exposure to bushfire. The database includes detail of the spatial, temporal and localised context in which the fatalities occurred. This paper presents the analysis of 674 civilian fatalities. The analysis has focused on characterising the relationship between fatal exposure location, weather conditions (wind speed, temperature, relative humidity and drought indices), proximity to fuel, activities and decision making leading up to the death. The analysis demonstrates that civilian fatalities were dominated by several iconic bushfires that have occurred under very severe weather conditions. The fatalities from Australia{\textquoteright}s 10 worst bushfire days accounted for 64\% of all civilian fatalities. Over 50\% of all fatalities occurred on days where the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) exceeded 100 (the current threshold for declaring a day as {\textquoteleft}catastrophic{\textquoteright}) proximal to the fatality. The dominant location category was open air representing 58\% of all fatalities followed by 28\% in structures, and 8\% in vehicles (6\% are unknown). For bushfires occurring under weather conditions exceeding an FFDI value of 100, fatalities within structures represented over 60\% of all fatalities. These were associated with people dying while attempting to shelter mainly in their place of residence. Of the fatalities that occurred inside a structure in a location that was specifically known, 41\% occurred in rooms with reduced visibility to the outside conditions. Over 78\% of all fatalities occurred within 30 m of the forest.}, keywords = {Fatalities, Policy, Warnings, Wildfire, WUI}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.013}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113002074}, author = {Blanchi, Raphaele and Justin Leonard and Katharine Haynes and Kimberley Opie and Melissa James and Felipe Dimer de Oliveira} } @article {2047, title = {Australian bushfire fatalities 1900-2008: exploring trends in relation to the {\textquoteleft}Prepare, stay and defend or leave early{\textquoteright} policy}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Policy}, volume = {13}, year = {2010}, month = {05/2010}, pages = {185 - 194}, abstract = {

In many jurisdictions, including parts of the US, authorities often dictate mandatory evacuations of communities threatened by bushfire (wildfire). Prior to the 2009 [{\textquoteleft}]Black Saturday{\textquoteright} fires in Victoria, Australian fire authorities in all States advised residents to decide whether they would prepare to stay and defend homes or leave early. The clear intent of that policy was to avoid late evacuations and the risks to life that this could entail. This study re-examines evidence underpinning this policy using analyses of a database of bushfire fatalities. The database contains information on 552 civilian (non-fire fighter) fatalities obtained from print media archives at Risk Frontiers and forensic, witness and police statements contained within coronial inquest reports for all bushfire fatalities between 1901 and 2008. This data, compiled before the Black Saturday fires, clearly show the dangers of being caught outside during a bushfire and the gendered division of the circumstances of these deaths. While men have been most often killed outside while attempting to protect assets, most female and child fatalities occurred while sheltering in the house or attempting to flee. The database provides a benchmark against which the Black Saturday experience can be examined.

}, keywords = {Community safety, Fatalities, Policy, Wildfire, Wildland-urban interface}, isbn = {1462-9011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.002}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901110000201}, author = {Katharine Haynes and John Handmer and John McAneney and Tibbits, Amalie and Coates, Lucinda} }