@article {bnh-2486, title = {Capturing community experiences in the 2015 Sampson Flat fire}, number = {154}, year = {2016}, month = {01/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Sampson Flat fire in January 2015 was the most destructive fire in the Adelaide Hills for more than 30 years, burning 12,569 hectares of public and private lands with losses including 24 homes, 146 other structures, 5 businesses and much livestock and fencing.

Following this fire, the CFS commissioned the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC to undertake research on the community{\textquoteright}s bushfire experience focusing on bushfire safety, the CFS Community Fire Safe program and information and warnings. Researchers from\ CQUniversity completed the research.

The research used both quantitative data from online and telephone surveys, and qualitative data from face-to-face or telephone interviews. Participants from fire affected and fire threatened areas were recruited by the CFS through their electronic and community networks. The research identified a number of positive findings in terms of messaging, bushfire awareness and safety, which are outlined in the introduction of the report.

The report is split into four parts. Parts one, two and three detail sub-project{\textquoteright}s within the larger project, while the appendices make up the fouth part.

}, isbn = {978-0-9941696-6-2}, author = {Danielle Every and Amy Reynolds and Larissa Clarkson and Christopher Bearman and Raymond Matthews and Laura Haigh and Drew Dawson} } @article {bnh-2504, title = {Are two halves better than one whole? A comparison of the amount and quality of sleep obtained by healthy adult males living on split and consolidated sleep{\textendash}wake schedules}, journal = {Accident Analysis \& Prevention}, year = {2015}, month = {11/2015}, abstract = {

The aim of this study was to compare the quantity/quality of sleep obtained by people living on split and consolidated sleep{\textendash}wake schedules. The study had a between-groups design, with 13 participants in a consolidated condition (all males, mean age of 22.5yr) and 16 participants in a split condition (all males, mean age of 22.6yr). Both conditions employed forced desynchrony protocols with the activity:rest ratio set at 2:1, but the consolidated condition had one sleep{\textendash}wake cycle every 28h (9.33+18.67), while the split condition had one sleep{\textendash}wake cycle every 14h (4.67+9.33). Sleep was assessed using polysomnography. Participants in the split and consolidated conditions obtained 4.0h of sleep per 14h and 7.6h of sleep per 28h, respectively. Some differences between the groups indicated that sleep quality was lower in the split condition than the consolidated condition: the split sleeps had longer sleep onset latency (9.7 vs. 4.3min), more arousals (7.4 vs. 5.7 per hour in bed), and a greater percentage of stage 1 sleep (4.1\% vs. 3.1\%), than the consolidated sleeps. Other differences between the groups indicated that sleep quality was higher in the split condition than the consolidated condition: the split sleeps had a lower percentage of wake after sleep onset sleep (11.7\% vs. 17.6\%), and a greater percentage of slow wave sleep (30.2\% vs. 23.8\%), than the consolidated sleeps. These results indicate that the split schedule was not particularly harmful, and may have actually been beneficial, to sleep. Split work{\textendash}rest schedules can be socially disruptive, but their use may be warranted in work settings where shiftworkers are separated from their normal family/social lives (e.g., fly-in fly-out mining) or where the need for family/social time is secondary to the task (e.g., emergency response to natural disasters).

}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300932}, author = {Gregory Roach and Xuan Zhou and David Darwent and Anastasi Kosmadopoulos and Drew Dawson and Charli Sargent} } @article {bnh-2506, title = {The efficacy of objective and subjective predictors of driving performance during sleep restriction and circadian misalignment}, journal = {Accident Analysis \& Prevention}, year = {2015}, month = {11/2015}, abstract = {

Fatigue is a significant contributor to motor-vehicle accidents and fatalities. Shift workers are particularly susceptible to fatigue-related risks as they are often sleep-restricted and required to commute around the clock. Simple assays of performance could provide useful indications of risk in fatigue management, but their effectiveness may be influenced by changes in their sensitivity to sleep loss across the day. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of several neurobehavioral and subjective tasks to sleep restriction (SR) at different circadian phases and their efficacy as predictors of performance during a simulated driving task. Thirty-two volunteers (M{\textpm}SD; 22.8{\textpm}2.9 years) were time-isolated for 13-days and participated in one of two 14-h forced desynchrony protocols with sleep opportunities equivalent to 8h/24h (control) or 4h/24h (SR). At regular intervals during wake periods, participants completed a simulated driving task, several neurobehavioral tasks, including the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), and subjective ratings, including a self-assessment measure of ability to perform. Scores transformed into standardized units relative to baseline were folded into circadian phase bins based on core body temperature. Sleep dose and circadian phase effect sizes were derived via mixed models analyses. Predictors of driving were identified with regressions. Performance was most sensitive to sleep restriction around the circadian nadir. The effects of sleep restriction around the circadian nadir were larger for simulated driving and neurobehavioral tasks than for subjective ratings. Tasks did not significantly predict driving performance during the control condition or around the acrophase during the SR condition. The PVT and self-assessed ability were the best predictors of simulated driving across circadian phases during SR. These results show that simple performance measures and self-monitoring explain a large proportion of the variance in driving when fatigue-risk is high.

}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515300968}, author = {Anastasi Kosmadopoulos and Charli Sargent and Xuan Zhou and David Darwent and Raymond Matthews and Drew Dawson and Gregory Roach} }