The Blue Mountains fires in 2013 have provided a wealth of research data that has helped RFS change their approach to bushfire safety. Photo by Gary P Hayes, supplied by NSW RFS.
This article first appeared in the Spring 2015 edition of Fire Australia magazine. By Nathan Maddock.
New ground was broken in 2013 for bushfire in NSW when catastrophic fire danger ratings were issued for heavily populated areas the first time in the state. The most challenging year for bushfires in NSW in more than a decade saw temperatures soar in January of that year, setting new records.
With the extreme temperatures and strong winds, many fires took hold. Three of the most significant were at Yass, Coonabarabran and Deans Gap in Shoalhaven. These fires were followed in October 2013 by a series of fires in the Blue Mountains—the huge State Mine Fire, along with fires at Mount Victoria and Springwood—and dangerous blazes in the Southern Highlands and around Port Stephens. The fires in the Blue Mountains destroyed more than 200 homes in just a day.
Following these devastating fires, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service (RFS) had an opportunity to find out just how communities had coped under duress. Had members of these communities planned and prepared for a bushfire appropriately? Did they even consider themselves at risk of a fire? The RFS called in the Bushfire CRC, and then the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC (which began in July 2013), to conduct community-focused research in fire-affected areas.
“2009 was really a turning point for communication and engagement activities for fire services,” Anthony Clark, Director Corporate Communications at the RFS, explained.
“We had had the same approach for a very long time and suddenly there was a renewed focus, shifting away from ‘Prepare, stay and defend or leave early’ to survivability. A much stronger emphasis was placed on planning, preparation and bushfire survival plans.”
Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 had changed the landscape of community bushfire safety across the whole country. Fire agencies had been operating in this area for several years, but bushfire preparation and planning became a lot more sophisticated.
“After Black Saturday, the pendulum swung so far in one direction because there was so much new material that was being put out to the community,” Mr Clark said.
Researchers visited the Siding Spring Observatory to gain important insights after the Coonabarabran bushfire.
A new approach
RFS had a large amount of quality data at its disposal thanks to the CRC research. Interviews had been conducted with 432 households affected by the fires, alongside 775 completed online surveys from across the state. The findings showed that the bushfire safety messages were not getting through to the community. The RFS needed to change its approach.
“The research through the CRC after the fires showed us that fire safety information actually became quite overwhelming for many people,” said Mr Clark.
“Fire agency messages are quite complex, not just for communities, but for our own people too. Fire is such a complex beast that when you start considering things like fire danger ratings, alert levels, messages around hazard reduction and fire weather warnings, it becomes quite overwhelming for people. This was one of the key findings that came out of the CRC research.”
There were three main findings that the RFS believed were the most important to how they approached community bushfire safety—people not personalising the risk, people not understanding how a bushfire would affect their house and people thinking bushfire preparation was just too hard.
“People generally do have a good appreciation that they live in an at-risk area. The problem is that they do not personalise that risk; they think it will happen to somebody else. It is not a new finding, but the scale of this was surprising,” said Mr Clark.
“It is the ‘She’ll be right mate’ attitude. People thinking it will happen to someone else, so why would I bother doing anything about it.”
CRC researchers spoke with people who were directly affected and living in the fire scar areas, including in the Blue Mountains. Many of them simply had no real appreciation for the real risk of fire. They knew a fire could happen, but they did not actually think about how it would affect them.
Writing down the household bushfire plan has long been advocated by fire agencies. It was considered that if a household did not do this, residents would not be prepared.
“Over the last few years in Australia we have probably overstated the importance of a written bushfire plan, and we have probably been unrealistic in our expectations of the community,” said Mr Clark.
“It can be as fun as doing a tax return. Nationally, because of the expectation of people having a written bushfire plan, fire agency expectations are disconnected from the reality of the community actually doing it.”
Using the three key research findings, RFS set about completely revamping its bushfire survival plan information.
“It is a complete rewrite,” Mr Clark said. “We have adjusted a lot of the messaging so it is more concise and relevant, while maintaining the national consistency we have strived so hard for.”
“For the first time with our bushfire survival plan, we have gone out to the community and asked them what would work—sitting down with people as they work through the plan to see what works and what doesn’t. We have really simplified the process and focused more on the discussion that people can have about making their plan.
“The bushfire survival plan had become more of a product, but we actually need to focus on the process that people go through so that they have a better understanding of their personal capacity, their limitations and their ability to actually plan and prepare for a bushfire.”
Mr Clark explained that RFS testing, conducted with behaviour change experts Behavioural Architects, has shown that people are more inclined to use the new material because it is more user friendly.
“The research that we have done through Behavioural Architects showed that people thought completing a bushfire survival plan may take a whole weekend or even longer. There was simply so much information factored in. Our testing has shown that people are confident of completing the new plan in about 20 minutes.
“Completing this plan is the first step for people and if they do want more detail in their plan, the information they need is still accessible.”
Increasing awareness
The research provided further opportunities for RFS to tweak its community safety approach. Public safety campaigns are not undertaken lightly, but the data have helped RFS create its new bushfire awareness campaign, which will run for the next three years across TV, print, radio and online media.
“Our approach now is to personalise fire,” said Mr Clark. “It is a pretty big shift for us.
“We have developed the ‘I am fire’ campaign that challenges some of the myths and misconceptions. We are presenting people with some of the cold hard facts, things like 90% of homes destroyed during a bushfire are actually destroyed through ember attack. We are giving people the simple steps that will make a difference to the survivability of a person or a home during a fire.”
Online videos focus on simple steps that people can undertake that will make a big difference to the safety of themselves, their family and their home if a bushfire were to threaten. Examples are given of the three things that can be done around the home that will make the biggest difference to its survivability.
“There has been a big disconnect between our expectations as fire agencies and the reality of the community actually completing this work,” said Mr Clark.
“If we present to people that it is easy, that it is do-able, people are more inclined to do it. This is a direct outcome of the CRC research.”
Internal benefits
The research has also taken RFS personnel on a journey too, helping to crystallise messages.
“The research has also been really important in delivering a bit of a reality check to our own people,” explained Mr Clark.
“CRC lead researcher Dr Jim McLennan presented at our community engagement conference in 2014 and a lot of people were really shocked by the national figures around the take-up of written fire plans. It made us question our approach and really look for alternatives that would make a difference to the safety of the community. Getting our own RFS volunteers across the research has been instrumental in bringing all of this together as well.”
Mr Clark believes that while it is still important to use the expertise of people in the fire and emergency services, at the end of the day, the product has to be what the community finds useful.
“This is a good example of the need to go out to the community, to take guidance from the community and test ideas, to make sure we are actually doing something that will ultimately be accepted.”