@article {bnh-8127, title = {The southwest Tasmania fires of summer 2018-2019 - a post event review capability study}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, pages = {64}, institution = {Zurich}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

The summer of 2018-19 (December 2018 {\textendash} February 2019) was devastating for the Australian state of Tasmania. Fire services were overwhelmed by the multiple, large fires that burned over 200,000 ha across the western half of the island from the end of December through to early March. This report analyses these fires using the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance{\textquoteright}s Post Event Review Capability (PERC) methodology. It focuses on community and business resilience; while there have been several reviews into firefighting operations, a more systemic view of resilience is less common.

The summer 2018/19 fires officially began on 24 December 2018, in one of the hottest and driest summers on record. On 15 January 2019, 2402 dry lightning strikes hit the state, igniting 70 fires that formed into four massive fire complexes. More than 210,000 hectares burned, including 95,000 hectares in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). Fortunately, no deaths were directly attributed to the bushfire, although an unknown number of people are believed to have died due to smoke and 114 injuries or accidents were recorded.

The event saw a significant and protracted evacuation, with the Huonville evacuation centre open for 15 days, accommodating up to 700 people daily. The lingering effects on impacted communities are still being felt. It resulted in the destruction of tourism assets, forestry resource and globally precious, protected ecosystems of the TWWHA. Smoke from the fires impacted health and the burgeoning viticulture industry in Tasmania. These impacts, along with others, have had significant flow-on effects to the already-struggling Tasmanian economy and communities.

There is much to learn from this event for Tasmania and other jurisdictions which will likely face similar events. This report outlines the risk landscape in southwest Tasmania, examining trends in climate-change charged bushfire conditions, exposure of people and assets, and their vulnerabilities. It outlines what happened during the event, with a focus on the community safety response. Direct and indirect impacts on people and economies are explored. Key insights are identified across all phases of the disaster cycle. Below we present an abridged version of the final recommendations of the study

}, keywords = {Capability, fires, post event, review, southwest, summer, Tasmania}, url = {https://www.zurich.com.au/content/dam/au-documents/news/the-southwest-tasmania-fires-of-summer-2018-2019-a-post-event-review-capability-study.pdf}, author = {Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-7515, title = {Civil society mobilisation after Cyclone Tracy, Darwin 1974}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2020}, month = {11/2020}, abstract = {

Major disasters challenge or exceed the capacity of the official emergency management sector to provide needed rescue services, support and relief. Emergency services in most jurisdictions do not have the surge capacity for unusual or extreme events without drawing on other jurisdictions or local people from outside the formal emergency management organisations. In such circumstances, those in the affected area need to organise themselves and make maximum use of local resources to cope with the immediate aftermath of impact. To find the required surge capacity, this suggests a whole of society response with the official system working with the capacities of people, commerce and organisations outside the emergency sector. An example is provided by the destruction of the northern Australian capital city of Darwin by Cyclone Tracy in December 1974. Informal volunteering and emergent leadership in Darwin and across Australia were critical to the immediate response and relief. Volunteering was widespread and worked well alongside official emergency management. With today{\textquoteright}s information and communication technologies and a strong national resilience narrative, we would expect to do at least as well. However, governments now exercise much more control over civil society. We examine the implications for surge capacity and adaptability.

}, keywords = {civil society mobilisation, Cyclone Tracy, Darwin, spontaneous volunteers, surge capacity}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1838254}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/RQNXEBDZWDSFG3PCZQMT/full?target=10.1080/17477891.2020.1838254}, author = {John Handmer and Pascale Maynard} } @article {bnh-6883, title = {Models and frameworks for assessing the value of disaster research}, journal = {Progress in Disaster Science}, volume = {6}, year = {2020}, month = {04/2020}, abstract = {

Funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources. Research has impact if it makes a demonstrable contribution to the economy, society, culture, public policy, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia.

This paper reviews frameworks that assess the impact of research and considers their usefulness in the conceptualisation and measurement of research impact in the disaster domain. Frameworks demonstrate impact through attribution, measurement and quantification of academic, social, and economic impacts in the short, medium and long term. While there is no specific framework in the hazard domain, adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) provides a well-considered basis for assessing disaster research impact.

}, keywords = {disaster, framework, Impact, research, Value, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100094}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300314?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-6733, title = {Navigating authority and legitimacy when {\textquoteleft}outsider{\textquoteright} volunteers co-produce emergency management services}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2020}, month = {02/2020}, abstract = {

This paper examines the thorny issue of authority and legitimacy in relation to {\textquoteleft}outsider{\textquoteright} emergency volunteering within the context of the community resilience policy agenda. Outsider emergency volunteering is any volunteering that: (a) aims to assist communities in any aspect of disaster preparedness, response, relief and recovery, and (b) is not registered with or under the direction of a formally recognised emergency management organisation (EMO). Hence, it does not have clear grounds to establish its authority and legitimacy within the formal authorising environment of the emergency management sector. The paper draws on co-production theory to examine how three important challenges for establishing authority and legitimacy were navigated in four Australian cases of co-production involving outsider emergency volunteering. Given the rise of resilience in disaster policy and the changing nature of volunteering in modern society, the very formalised and defined foundations of authority and legitimacy in emergency management will need to soften and expand to become more networked and distributed. The four cases described here shed some light on what softer and expanded foundations for authority and legitimacy can look like and the processes that can support them in the emergency management context.

}, keywords = {Australia, authority, co-production, Emergency management, legitimacy, Unaffiliated emergency volunteering}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1727829}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2020.1727829}, author = {Blythe McLennan and J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-7214, title = {The value of research from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, number = {601}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC {\textendash} the CRC) retained us to develop a transparent, reproducible estimate of the total value to Australia of its research: to answer the question, what is the return to Australia of its investment in the BNHCRC?

Cooperative Research Centres, like the BNHCRC, represent the main formal vehicle for explicitly enhancing research and industry collaboration in Australia.\  With government sponsorship, researchers and industry work closely to produce socially and commercially desirable outcomes.\ 

Funders of all research, including that of bushfire and emergency management, increasingly want to ensure that their investments generate value for the emergency management sector and contribute to risk reduction.\  Research value can take a number of forms, from a readily assessed improvement in performance due to a new widget or process, to increases in capacity and risk management across the emergency sector, and direct and indirect benefits to the whole of society and economy.\ \ 

The ARC (Australian Research Council) has a broad definition of research impact:

{\textquotedblleft}Research impact is the contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research.{\textquotedblright}\ 

The definition suggested by the European Commission is broader still and includes indirect impacts and effects, on for example, innovation culture, capacity building, and increasing the stock of useful knowledge.\  We use the ARC{\textquoteright}s definition broadened slightly to encompass the specifics set out in the European definition as they help to capture the CRC{\textquoteright}s contribution. This is achieved through four pathways to value, set out in the following section.

}, keywords = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, research, Value}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-7-1}, issn = {601}, author = {John Handmer and Adriana Keating and Ken Strahan} } @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} } @inbook {bnh-4957, title = {Australian cities and the governance of climate change}, booktitle = {Australia{\textquoteright}s Metropolitan Imperative - An Agenda for Governance Reform}, year = {2018}, publisher = {CSIRO Publishing}, organization = {CSIRO Publishing}, chapter = {Australian cities and the governance of climate change}, address = {Clayton, Victoria, Australia}, issn = {9781486307968}, url = {https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/7726/}, author = {Newton, Peter and Bertram, Nigel and John Handmer and Nigel Tapper and RP Thornton and Whetton, Penny} } @article {bnh-5038, title = {Enabling sustainable emergency volunteering: annual project report 2017-18}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

An inexorable link exists between volunteerism and community capability and resilience with respect to disaster risk. Communities and governments increasingly expect emergency management organisations (EMOs) to actively enable and enhance the value of volunteering for communities with respect to building community capability and resilience. This is strongly reflected in disaster management policy in Australia, embodied in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG, 2011). It is also evident in the United Nation{\textquoteright}s Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction that calls on Nations to encourage {\textquotedblleft}Civil society, volunteers, organized voluntary work organizations and community based organizations to{\textquotedblright}, amongst other things, {\textquotedblleft}advocate for resilient communities and an inclusive and all-of-society disaster risk management that strengthen synergies across groups.{\textquotedblright} (UNISDR, 2015, p.23)\ 

}, issn = {423}, author = {Blythe McLennan and Patrick Dunlop and Darja Kragt and Tarn Kruger and Djurre Holtrop and Maryl{\`e}ne Gagn{\'e} and Aleksandra Luksyte and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-5456, title = {Self-evacuation archetypes in Australian bushfire}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {27}, year = {2018}, month = {03/2019}, abstract = {

Australian householders respond to bushfire in diverse and complex ways according to their circumstances and characteristics. They tend not to simply make a binary decision to evacuate from or remain at their property, or simply to {\textquoteright}wait and see{\textquoteright} what happens before they decide. Seven self-evacuation archetypes displaying universally recognisable, fundamentally human characteristics were identified through cluster and discriminant function analysis of data from 457 householders who had recently experienced a bushfire.

These seven archetypes characterise the diverse attitudes and behaviour of typical groupings of householders faced with making a protective decision during a bushfire. The archetypes comprise those who deny a threat exists (Threat Denier), who do not believe that they are responsible for themselves (Responsibility Denier) or are unable to take responsibility for their safe evacuation (Dependent Evacuator). They include those who are determined to safely evacuate (Considered Evacuator), those who look to advice and guidance from their community (Community Guided) and those who make considerable efforts to remain but are concerned they lack the experience to do so successfully (Worried Waverers). Some, who are experienced with bushfire, self-reliant and well prepared are committed to remaining (Experienced Independents) but in unfavourable circumstances may evacuate. Bushfire safety policy and programs should not treat these householders as simply stereotypical {\textquoteright}evacuators{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteright}remainers{\textquoteright} but accommodate the diversity of these archetypes to effectively meet their educational and engagement needs.

}, keywords = {hazard, Personal safety, Public policy, Wildfire}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.016}, url = {https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:46864}, author = {Ken Strahan and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @conference {bnh-3899, title = {Out of uniform (building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering): what have we learnt?}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

How can the emergency management sector build capability and enable community resilience by supporting forms of volunteering that fall outside the scope of their current volunteer and community engagement models? That {\textendash} in a nutshell - is the question that the Out of Uniform (building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering) research project was set up to answer. The project concluded in June this year, and this presentation reports on key themes that emerged across four cases studies of {\textquoteleft}out-of-scope{\textquoteright} volunteering in action, all of which reinforce in various ways the role and importance of coproduction.

The cases studied were diverse in context and characteristics. Despite their wide variation, however, quite a number of shared themes were found across them that included: the value of coproduction, the impact of job mobility amongst public officials, the shapes and styles of volunteer leadership, the rising importance of brokering actors, groups, networks and platforms; and the challenge of sustainability.

Taken together, these findings reveal some surprising areas where emergency management organisations can make changes to the way they engage with communities and volunteers (both affiliated and not) that can reap potentially significant capacity-building and community resilience benefits. Many of the changes are likely to concern changes to internal organisational processes, structures, and training to build capacity for establishing, maintaining and resourcing co-productive relationships with actors, groups and organisations that have not been traditionally involved in emergency management in the past.Context

The highly demanding nature of managing emergencies can disrupt effective team performance. These disruptions can lead to an impaired operational response, creating risks to public safety, property and other assets. This project is helping to foster cohesive teamwork when it is most needed {\textendash} when teams are responding under pressure to emergency events.\ 

}, author = {J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-4217, title = {Out of uniform - building resilience through non-traditional volunteering: annual report 2016-17}, number = {327}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The traditional model of emergency volunteering in Australia is based on formal, accredited volunteers who are affiliated with emergency management organisations, and are mostly involved in response and recovery roles [e.g. 14]. This form of volunteering is crucial and has many strengths. However, planning solely for this form of volunteering by EMOs excludes the potentially large number of people who are motivated to volunteer before, during and after emergencies in other, less ongoing and more informal ways, and without direct affiliation with established emergency management organisations (EMOs).

At the same time, the landscape of volunteering is undergoing significant change, in Australia and internationally. Large-scale socioeconomic changes have recast the conditions in which people volunteer in the 21st Century [12, 15]. As a result, emergency managers can expect to engage with a much wider and more diverse range of volunteers than in the past. These volunteers bring new opportunities, but also risks.

There are considerable benefits to be realised from greater engagement with these more diverse and, from the perspective of established emergency management organisations (EMOs) {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright}, emergency volunteers. With disaster risk increasing worldwide due to population growth, urban development and climate change [16] it is likely that non-traditional volunteers will provide much of the additional surge capacity required to respond to more frequent emergencies and disasters in the future. There is also a significant and largely untapped opportunity for EMOs to contribute to community resilience by supporting non-traditional emergency volunteers in new ways.

}, issn = {327}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker and Tarn Kruger} } @article {bnh-3800, title = {Recovery volunteering after the Pinery fire, South Australia 2015: an explorative case study}, number = {254}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The goal of this exploratory study was to better understand the breadth of disaster recovery volunteering following the Pinery Fire in South Australia in 2015, with a particular focus on faith-based groups. The report draws upon experiences and perspectives from a key group of individuals (8) involved in the recovery phase of the fire. The study sought to learn from the experiences and perspectives of these individuals. The study also focused on the disaster recovery structure in South Australia within which this volunteering is embedded

The move toward engaging volunteers and NGOs not traditionally involved in disaster recovery alongside those with more established roles can be of benefit in a range of ways. The pool of volunteers to assist impacted communities will obviously be greater. Many of the members from community development and faith-based organisations have skills and approvals to volunteer and undertake a breadth of tasks and can be well-suited to provide much needed social support. However, an influx of people can put pressure on administrative processes, such as timely placement of new volunteers. In addition, organisations can incur costs undertaking recovery roles and this cost shifting of financial burden from disasters is one they do not want to, or cannot support. Furthermore, as NGOs their autonomy is important because they are NGOs and independent of government and this arrangement they do not wish to forgo even during disaster recovery.

NGOs with a common goal to assist in the recovery generally worked well together, although some rivalries and jostling about processes occurred. The experiences and reflections of interviewees about the recovery processes for the Pinery Fire were in general very positive. They acknowledge their involvement in fires like Pinery and the collaborative approaches such as South Australia{\textquoteright}s Stakeholder Forum for disaster recovery can prepare them to better share data; streamline processes and differentiate roles for future events.

}, issn = {254}, author = {Tarn Kruger and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3799, title = {Strategies for non-traditional emergency volunteers: a risk-benefit framework for decision-making}, number = {253}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents a Risk-Benefit framework that can assist decision-makers in emergency management organisations (EMOs) to identify potential benefits and risks of alternative strategies for {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} emergency volunteers. The framework was developed primarily from stakeholder input in two workshops, combined with recent research.

Non-traditional emergency volunteering includes any type of volunteering {\textendash} formal and informal - that is: 1) Focused on contributing to disaster and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, or relief/recovery and 2) Involves volunteers who are not traditional emergency management volunteers affiliated with EMOs.

Different strategies for non-traditional volunteers bring different sets of potential benefits, challenges and risks for communities, volunteers, and EMOs. Not all of the potential consequences of different options will be immediately evident to a particular organisation at a particular point in time. Without decision support EMOs may perceive greater risks with non-traditional emergency volunteers and voluntary organisations and overlook or downgrade potential benefits due to unawareness, unfamiliarity, or risk aversion.

}, issn = {253}, author = {Tarn Kruger and John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @article {bnh-3099, title = {Briefing paper: A proposed framework to assess strategies for engaging non-traditional emergency volunteers}, number = {232}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This briefing paper presents a proposed framework for assessing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of four broad, alternative strategies available to emergency management organisations (EMOs) for engaging with non-traditional emergency volunteers and voluntary organisations: Ignore, Resist, Accept, and Embrace. The framework explicitly requires consideration of multifaceted consequences for key stakeholders groups beyond established EMOs (e.g. communities impacted, the volunteers themselves), and across the emergency management cycle (before, during and after an event).

The briefing paper begins with a research-based context and rationale for developing the engagement framework. It then presents the proposed engagement framework itself and briefly outlines a process that will be used between July and December 2016 to test and refine the framework for use by EMOs as an applied decision support tool. The refinement process is centred on a series of interactive workshops with key stakeholder groups to test the framework in an applied setting.

The engagement framework is being developed by RMIT researchers as a component of the Bushfire and Natural Hazard{\textquoteright}s Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project (http://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/resilient-people-infrastructure-and-institutions/248).

}, issn = {232}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3050, title = {Building best practice in child-centred disaster risk reduction: Annual project report 2015-2016}, number = {188}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This Annual Report summarises progress to date on Building Best Practice in Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CC-DRR), with a focus on 2015-16.\  The first 2.5 years has included scoping and review, the development of a conceptual framework to guide the research, an utilisation roadmap, and the initiation of pilot and main research.\  The CC-DRR Project conceptual framework reflects a parsimonious research narrative designed to build on research-policy-practice progress to date but, critically, solve problems and challenges across that nexus.\  The narrative itself has two guiding questions as follows:

Research to date has commenced and is ongoing across these major areas.\  This includes research started in 2014-15, but continuing in 2015-16, focused on major stakeholders{\textquoteright} views, including children and youth, households and parents/caregivers, teachers and school personnel, emergency management/DRR professionals. It includes in 2015-16 initial research on CC-DRR-related student learning and DRR/resilience program outcomes, commencement of costings-related research, and research on implementation obstacles and facilitators for schools and emergency management agencies.\  With project End Users as primary stakeholders, 2015-16 reflected many consultations and end user capacity-building workshopping. This included their direct involvement in the Project to ensure that current CC-DRR-focused disaster resilience education (DRE) programs reflect their needs and reflect theory and promising, good and best practices (i.e., Through a {\textquotedblleft}co-development and co-evaluation{\textquotedblright} process with End Users, 2015-16 included developing and refining a CC-DRR Practice Framework. Since its development, the Framework has begun to be used to systematically evaluate End User agency DRE programs to ensure they reflect evidence-based practices (EBP{\textquoteright}s). The framework incorporates three core dimensions (design, implementation, evaluation) and three guiding principles (collaboration and partnership, protection and participation, diversity and equity) (see Figure 1 on p. 24).\ 

These agency-based DRE programs are now being examined for {\textquotedblleft}practice-based evidence{\textquotedblright} (PBE), including child learning outcomes and DRR and resilience outcomes.\  Both EBP and PBE steps are couched within an implementation framework, with project research designed to support both policy- and practice-based implementation of CC-DRR/DRE programs. Research on implementation began in 2014-15 and continues in 2015-16, including the commencement of a PhD study on EM agency implementation policies and practices.\  This report goes into more detail on this program of research and related activities, including summarising progress in CC-DRR research to date, as well as some important challenges that have been identified.

}, issn = {188}, author = {Kevin Ronan and Briony Towers and John Handmer and Katharine Haynes and Eva Alisic and Nick Ireland and Marla Petal and Susan Davie and David Johnston and Vicki Johnson} } @article {bnh-2562, title = {Centralised coordination of spontaneous emergency volunteers: the EV CREW model}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {31}, year = {2016}, month = {02/2016}, abstract = {
This paper presents a case study of Emergency Volunteering {\DH} Community Response to Extreme Weather (EV CREW). EV CREW is a best-practice model for centrally coordinating spontaneous volunteers who respond during emergencies. The model was developed by Volunteering Queensland, a not-for-profit organisation and the peak volunteering body in Queensland. The case study outlines the EV CREW model, with particular attention on intended outcomes for community resilience and emergency management. It presents spontaneous volunteering as an empowering and legitimate component of recovery and resilience and, when coordinated appropriately, it adds value to recovery, is rewarding for volunteers, and reduces associated risks for volunteers, recipient organisations and communities. It also emphasises that central coordination does not replace traditional emergency management volunteering nor informal helping behaviour and emergent volunteerism. Instead, models like EV CREW extend existing emergency management arrangements to increase the variety of ways available for people to contribute to emergency management and disaster recovery.
}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-31-01-07}, author = {Julie Molloy and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3302, title = {The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia}, journal = {Natural Hazards}, volume = {84}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, abstract = {

There is a growing expectation that volunteers will have a greater role in disaster management in the future compared to the past. This is driven largely by a growing focus on building resilience to disasters. At the same time, the wider landscape of volunteering is fundamentally changing in the twenty-first century. This paper considers implications of this changing landscape for the resilience agenda in disaster management, with a focus on Australia. It first reviews major forces and trends impacting on disaster volunteering, highlighting four key developments: the growth of more diverse and episodic volunteering styles, the impact of new communications technology, greater private sector involvement and growing government expectations of and intervention in the voluntary sector. It then examines opportunities in this changing landscape for the Australian emergency management sector across five key strategic areas and provides examples of Australian responses to these opportunities to date. The five areas of focus are: developing more flexible volunteering strategies, harnessing spontaneous volunteering, building capacity to engage digital (and digitally enabled) volunteers, tapping into the growth of employee and skills-based volunteering and co-producing community-based disaster risk reduction. Although there have been considerable steps taken in Australia in some of these areas, overall there is still a long way to go before the sector can take full advantage of emerging opportunities. The paper thus concludes by identifying important research and practice gaps in this area.

}, url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007\%2Fs11069-016-2532-5}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-7917, title = {The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia}, journal = {Natural Hazards}, volume = {84}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, chapter = {2031}, abstract = {

There is a growing expectation that volunteers will have a greater role in disaster management in the future compared to the past. This is driven largely by a growing focus on building resilience to disasters. At the same time, the wider landscape of volunteering is fundamentally changing in the twenty-first century. This paper considers implications of this changing landscape for the resilience agenda in disaster management, with a focus on Australia. It first reviews major forces and trends impacting on disaster volunteering, highlighting four key developments: the growth of more diverse and episodic volunteering styles, the impact of new communications technology, greater private sector involvement and growing government expectations of and intervention in the voluntary sector. It then examines opportunities in this changing landscape for the Australian emergency management sector across five key strategic areas and provides examples of Australian responses to these opportunities to date. The five areas of focus are: developing more flexible volunteering strategies, harnessing spontaneous volunteering, building capacity to engage digital (and digitally enabled) volunteers, tapping into the growth of employee and skills-based volunteering and co-producing community-based disaster risk reduction. Although there have been considerable steps taken in Australia in some of these areas, overall there is still a long way to go before the sector can take full advantage of emerging opportunities. The paper thus concludes by identifying important research and practice gaps in this area.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2532-5}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-016-2532-5}, author = {Blythe McLennan and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2755, title = {Examining bushfire policy in action: Preparedness and behaviour in the 2009 Black Saturday fires}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Policy}, volume = {63}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, chapter = {55}, abstract = {

An important part of reducing the risk of disaster is the preparedness of the people at risk. Australian bushfire authorities have policies and publicity about what households should do to be prepared {\textendash} which include knowledge about fire risk, awareness of one{\textquoteright}s own risk, taking specific steps to reduce risk including having an emergency plan. Yet, there is sparse empirical evidence about the link between preparedness and actual behaviour in the face of a major disaster.

The authors had an opportunity to examine the circumstances surrounding the 172 civilian fatalities which occurred in the 2009 Victorian {\textquoteleft}Black Saturday{\textquoteright} bushfires, through the examination of a detailed fatality dataset compiled by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. This dataset allows detailed examination of Victorian bushfire safety policy ({\textquoteleft}Stay or go{\textquoteright}) in action on a day of extreme fire danger: from preparedness (both before and on the day of the fire) to behaviour on the day of the fire itself.

This analysis presents three overarching findings. First, some aspects of {\textquoteleft}Stay or go{\textquoteright} appear to be supported: being well-prepared to evacuate remains the safest option in a bushfire; sheltering passively is very dangerous. Second, successful implementation of {\textquoteleft}Stay or go{\textquoteright} depends on a multitude of factors, which can challenge even the most capable householders. Third, events like Black Saturday challenge the {\textquoteleft}Stay or go{\textquoteright} approach, and indicate the need for a different approach on extreme fire danger days. We conclude by reflecting on the findings from this research in terms of the most recent changes to bushfire policy in Victoria.

}, keywords = {Behaviour, Preparedness, Safety policy, Vulnerability, Wildfire}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.011}, url = {http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T6tW5Ce0rOF7M}, author = {John Handmer and O{\textquoteright}Neill, Saffron J} } @conference {bnh-2942, title = {Harnessing the capacities of spontaneous volunteers: application and adaptation of the Queensland model}, booktitle = {AFAC16}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Brisbane}, abstract = {

Spontaneous volunteers are defined in Australia as: {\textquoteleft}those who seek to contribute on impulse{\textemdash}people who offer assistance following a disaster and who are not previously affiliated with recognised volunteer agencies and may or may not have relevant training, skills or experience{\textquoteright} (Australian Red Cross 2010; Cottrell 2010). Spontaneous volunteering by unaffiliated members of the public following a disaster event is certainly not a new occurrence (Whittaker et al. 2015). Known in the sociological disaster literature as convergence, it is recognised as an inevitable and normal response to {\textemdash} particularly large-scale {\textemdash} disasters (Drabek and McEntire 2003; Sharon 2004). A related term that is not commonly used in Australian emergency management is {\textquoteleft}emergent volunteerism{\textquoteright}. This {\textquoteleft}involves new forms of volunteering that occur in response to unmet needs, whether perceived or real{\textquoteright} (Whittaker et al., 2015, p.363).


Spontaneous volunteering has gradually gained in profile and legitimacy in Australia disaster management over the five to ten years (Australian Red Cross 2010). This process has sped up due to the combination of a number of high-profile volunteering efforts such as the Brisbane Mud Army, and the shift toward a resilience-based approach to disaster management (COAG 2011). Most recently, a National Spontaneous Volunteer Strategy was endorsed by the Australia{\textendash}New Zealand Emergency Committee in late 2015 that provides guidance to emergency management organisations.


From a management and policy perspective, until recently spontaneous volunteering has largely been portrayed as an unpredictable and uncontrollable nuisance and risk rather than as a legitimate part of response and recovery (Helsloot and Ruitenberg 2004; Scanlon et al. 2014). Certainly, having unexperienced and uninformed members of the public converge on a disaster site presents many real and difficult to manage health, safety and wellbeing risks for volunteers, residents and trained responders alike (Whittaker et al., 2015). It can also disrupt the formal response effort and divert resources away from the people and communities that are directly impacted (Fernandez et al. 2006).

}, author = {Julie Molloy and J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-3822, title = {Locating the intangible: integrating a sense of place into cost estimation of natural disasters}, journal = {Geoforum}, volume = {77}, year = {2016}, month = {12/2016}, abstract = {

The field of disaster loss assessment attempts to provide comprehensive estimates of the cost of disasters. Assessment of intangibles remains a major weakness. Existing costing frameworks have acknowledged losses to cultural {\textendash} as distinct from economic, social, human or environmental {\textendash} capital. However, the inclusion of cultural line items has usually been conducted in an\ ad hoc\ and under-theorised way, with little empirical evidence. This paper presents the possibility of using\ cultural capital\ itself as an overarching category for specifically cultural losses. It further focuses on the specific concept of\ sense of place\ as one area that has been neglected even in frameworks that consider other kinds of intangibles, and argues, on both theoretical and pragmatic grounds, that a collective or shared sense of place can be subsumed within cultural capital loss estimates. Christchurch provides an illustration of the idea as relevant and comparable empirical material is available from before and since the 2011 earthquake.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.09.018}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718515302323}, author = {Magee, L. and John Handmer and Timothy Neale and Ladds, M.} } @article {bnh-3086, title = {Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional volunteering: Annual project report 2015-2016}, number = {220}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The traditional model of emergency volunteering in Australia is based on formal, accredited volunteers who are affiliated with emergency management organisations, and are mostly involved in response and recovery roles.

This form of volunteering is crucial and has many strengths. However, management models based solely on this form of volunteering exclude the potentially large number of people who are motivated to volunteer before, during and after emergencies in other, unaffiliated, less ongoing and/or more informal ways. Failing to plan for engagement with this wider range of emergency volunteers means that important opportunities for EMOs to help build community resilience.

At the same time, the landscape of volunteering is changing significantly. As a result, emergency managers can expect to engage with a much wider and more diverse range of volunteering that brings new opportunities but also risks.

Why is it important?

Other forms of volunteering that are {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} for the emergency management sector are: 1) on the rise, 2) inevitable, and 3) have great potential for increasing the sector{\textquoteright}s workforce surge capacity and for building community resilience are missed.

The topic is a new concern for most agencies, and there is little published research. There is awareness, however, of the need to plan for non-traditional volunteers, to move away from ad hoc approaches, and to capitalise on non-traditional volunteering to a greater extent in the future.\  \ 

How is the project addressing it?

The Out of Uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project supports the development of more inclusive strategies for volunteer engagement for the emergency management sector.

Key contributions from the project towards this goal include:

}, issn = {220}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @article {bnh-2350, title = {Building best practice in child-centred disaster risk reduction: Annual project report 2014-2015}, number = {142}, year = {2015}, month = {02/11/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This Annual Report summarises progress to date on Building Best Practice in Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CC-DRR), with a focus on 2014-2015, but also including the first half of 2014.\  The first 1.5 years has included both scoping and review and the initiation of both pilot and main research.\  A scoping exercise reviewed progress in theory development and across the CC-DRR policy-practice-research nexus.\  In doing so, a parsimonious research narrative emerged intended to build on progress to date but, critically, solve problems and challenges across that nexus.\  The narrative has two main parts to it as follows:

Research to date has included pilot research focused on major stakeholders{\textquoteright} views, including children and youth, households and parents/caregivers, teachers and school personnel, emergency management/DRR professionals.\  With an ultimate research focus squarely on reflecting End User needs, particularly those focused on utilization, many consultations and end user workshopping have been successful in defining a stepwise project and utilisation draft roadmap. \ A first step is to ascertain whether current CC-DRR-focused disaster resilience education (DRE) programs reflect stakeholder needs and reflect theory and promising, good and best practices through developing a CC-DRR Practice and Evaluation Framework. Through an End User/Project Team co-development process, the Framework is then planned to be used to {\textquotedblleft}co-evaluate{\textquotedblright} End User agency DRE programs.

Following this {\textquotedblleft}stakeholder-supported, evidence-based practice{\textquotedblright} step, then DRE programs will be examined for {\textquotedblleft}practice-based evidence{\textquotedblright}, including child learning outcomes, DRR and resilience outcomes and cost effectiveness outcomes.\  Both EBP and PBE steps are couched within an implementation framework, with project research designed to support both policy- and practice-based implementation of CC-DRR/DRE programs.\  The diagram on the next page provides a visual overview of this narrative.\ \  Finally, the report documents the various research and related activities that are intended to support this overall program of research.

}, issn = {142}, author = {Kevin Ronan and Briony Towers and Katharine Haynes and Eva Alisic and Susan Davie and Marla Petal and Nick Ireland and John Handmer and David Johnston} } @conference {bnh-1564, title = {Building Community Resilience Through Informal Emergency Volunteering Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

This paper considers different types of informal volunteers and their contributions to emergency and disaster management. {\textquoteleft}Informal volunteer{\textquoteright} is defined in the context of emergencies and disasters, before literature on citizen responses to emergencies and disasters is reviewed. We examine some of the implications of informal volunteerism for emergency and disaster management, including challenges associated with organisational culture and legal liability. We argue that more adaptive and inclusive models of emergency and disaster management are needed to harness the capacities and resilience that exist within and across communities.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2103, title = {Community-led bushfire preparedness in action: The case of Be Ready Warrandyte}, number = {113}, year = {2015}, month = {08/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report presents key findings from a case study of Be Ready Warrandyte (BRW): a community-led bushfire preparedness project that was undertaken by the Warrandyte Community Association between May 2012 and June 2015. The project was described as:

{\textquotedblleft}A self-help, community-led project to develop tools and resources to help our community to be safer and more able to deal with the risk of bushfires. The project{\textquoteright}s goal is to have more Warrandyte households with effective bushfire plans{\textquotedblright}.\ 

Be Ready Warrandyte is notable for being an award-winning, community-led preparedness project, and for involving a high degree of collaboration between local community volunteers, local government and the Country Fire Authority (CFA), all of which were represented on its committee of management. It is an example of a key type of non-traditional emergency volunteering: extending volunteerism.

In the context of the Out of Uniform project, non-traditional emergency volunteering is any type of volunteering that is: 1) focused on emergency prevention, preparedness, response, or recovery, and; 2) involves volunteers who are not traditional emergency volunteers affiliated with established emergency management organisations (EMOs).

Extending volunteerism occurs when a voluntary organisation that does not have an emergency or disaster management role extends its activities into that area in response to an event or an increase in risk awareness [2]. This is the case for the Warrandyte Community Association (WCA) whose primary goal is to {\textquotedblleft}promote community life{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}defend the character and heritage of the township{\textquotedblright}\ 

The goal of this case study was to better understand the key characteristics, processes, activities and outcomes of the Be Ready Warrandyte project. It was not intended as a project evaluation. It did not seek to objectively assess the project{\textquoteright}s success. Rather, it sought to learn from the experiences and perspectives of those involved in the project. It therefore provides insights into the potential opportunities and challenges for undertaking community-led initiatives through {\textquoteleft}extending volunteerism{\textquoteright} in emergency preparedness that are suggested by the {\textquoteleft}on-the-ground{\textquoteright} experiences of Be Ready Warrandyte participants.

The findings will be valuable for emergency management organisations that are moving towards more localised, community-based and partnership approaches to community safety and engagement.

}, issn = {113}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-1721, title = {Emergency volunteering in Australia: transforming, not declining}, number = {065}, year = {2015}, month = {04/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

The landscape of volunteering is undergoing significant change, in Australia and internationally. Large-scale socioeconomic changes have recast the conditions under which people volunteer in the 21st Century.

With the notable exception of research into the role of digital volunteers, there has been very little research attention yet given to the impact of such changes on disaster and emergency volunteering. Within Australia, a narrow focus on shoring up and protecting the traditional volunteer base of Australian state and territory emergency service agencies against emerging challenges has drowned out awareness of emerging new opportunities. This has led to a narrative of crisis and decline in emergency volunteering that threatens to leave emergency management organisations falling behind in a changing volunteer environment.

This paper presents a more complete picture of the changing landscape of emergency volunteering. It identifies key shifts in the volunteering landscape as a whole and considers the possible implications for Australian emergency volunteering more particularly. Importantly, it includes within its purview volunteering that takes place both with and without affiliation to state and territory emergency service agencies.

The most significant shifts were identified by triangulating two sources of information: 1) international literature on trends in volunteering and 2) trends indicated directly in domestic data and research studies on volunteering in Australia. The same trends were identified in the international and domestic sources.

The {\textquoteright}Big 4{\textquoteright} Forces of Change

While there are numerous developments currently shaping and reshaping the nature and practice of volunteering, based on a broad review of the literature they can be justifiably distilled down to four big, interconnected forces of change.\  The first three of these are each associated with the recent burgeoning of new or previously uncommon forms of volunteering: episodic, corporate (and skills-based) and digital. Combined, these three fast-growing forms of volunteering are widely regarded as {\textquotedblleft}the wave of the future{\textquotedblright}.

The rise of episodic (shorter-term) volunteering is most directly connected to the transformation of modern life and work in the 21st Century.\  The growth of corporate volunteering reflects growing private sector engagement with the voluntary sector and with the societies and communities in which they operate. Meanwhile, digital volunteering is an exciting outcome of the revolution in communication technology, particularly the growth of interactive web 2.0, social media and mobile devices.\  The final trend is greater entanglement of the voluntary sector and government that is recasting the institutional and organisational settings in which volunteering takes place.

Opportunities for Australian Emergency Volunteering

There is no doubt that these {\textquoteleft}big 4{\textquoteright} forces of change will reshape the future landscape of emergency volunteering in Australia as elsewhere. However, exactly what shape this future landscape will take is unclear. In large part, it depends on how emergency management organisations, volunteer managers and volunteers themselves respond to the shifting constellation of challenges and opportunities that are developing in an unfolding {\textquotedblleft}new world{\textquotedblright} of volunteering. The current narrow focus on shoring up and protecting the traditional volunteer base of Australian state and territory emergency service agencies against emerging challenges needs to be expanded to embrace new opportunities to engage with a potentially larger, more diverse, more empowered and more innovative volunteer base.

Emerging research reveals numerous benefits to organisations of engaging with episodic volunteers. These include accessing a larger potential volunteer base, potentially greater flexibility, adaptability and pragmatism amongst episodic volunteers compared to traditional volunteers, and the likelihood that episodic volunteers will commit more time in the shorter-term, which is of particular relevance to disaster response.

For emergency management organisations, more diverse and flexible recruitment and retention strategies are needed to tap into the potential contribution of episodic volunteers. This includes practices such as offering more diverse volunteering roles and experiences, allowing volunteers to more actively shape their own roles, engaging further with skills-based volunteering, as well as actively fostering a sense of community and building social capital amongst volunteers.

Opportunities to develop partnerships with the private sector to support corporate and skills-based emergency volunteering are not being taken up. Most corporate volunteering appears to be reactionary and ad hoc, while on the emergency management sector side there appears to be growing doubt over the potential role of corporate volunteering in particular. Given the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies, the growth in employee volunteer programs, the growing time commitment expected in paid employment and the preferences of younger employees to combine their paid and volunteer work, it would be worthwhile renewing a focus on exploring models for partnering with the private sector to support emergency volunteering.

Digital volunteering has great potential to strengthen and diversify emergency volunteering; however it would require the greatest degree of change and adaptation within existing emergency management arrangements. While there is a nascent interest in digital volunteering in Australian emergency management, examples of digital volunteering have so far occurred more or less in isolation from the formal emergency management system.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) lists three adaptation needs amongst traditional humanitarian organisations in order to harness the potential of digital volunteering that are also pertinent to Australian emergency management. They are to adapt to: 1) work with new data sources, 2) work with new partners and techniques, and 3) the idea of information as a basic need in humanitarian response. The UN-OCHA report also argues that {\textquotedblleft}These adaptations are not optional{\textquotedblright} and stresses that {\textquotedblleft}Governments and responders will soon need answers to the questions: {\textquotedblleft}Where were you? We Facebooked/tweeted/texted for help, why didn{\textquoteright}t someone come?{\textquotedblright}

The potential impacts of the shifting relationship between government and the voluntary sector on volunteering are unclear. However, there are opportunities for pursuing supportive public-voluntary sector partnerships. The response of volunteers and volunteer-led organisations to the new organisational and institutional contexts appears to be developing along one of two divergent paths: increased professionalization and greater informality. Professionalization may create greater potential for partnerships as non-profits take up more professional and business-like models of operation that are more familiar to and compatible with government agencies. While a growth in informal, grass-roots volunteering would be less predictable for emergency management organisations, it is well aligned with the national goal of building community resilience to disasters.\ \ 

Conclusions

A key message arising from this report is that emergency volunteering is undergoing a process of transformation rather than one of decline. One thing is clear; the future landscape of emergency volunteering is going to be populated by a much wider and more diverse range of players than in the past. In order to harness the potential of this new landscape, existing emergency management organisations will need to: a) develop more diverse and flexible approaches to engage with a wider range of volunteers and volunteering styles, and b) seek out new forms of partnership and collaboration with both the voluntary and private sectors.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @conference {bnh-2078, title = {The future of {\textquoteright}non-traditional{\textquoteright} emergency volunteering: what will it look like and how can it work? - Peer reviewed}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

Research proceedings from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC \& AFAC Conference in Adelaide, 1-3 September 2015.\ 

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @conference {bnh-2070, title = {How will the new satellite navigation systems help with the provision of information and warnings? - peer viewed}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, month = {09/2015}, abstract = {

Research proceedings from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC \& AFAC Conference in Adelaide, 1-3 September 2015.\ 

}, author = {Suelynn Choy and John Handmer and J Whittaker and Yuki Shinohara and Tomohiro Hatori and Naohiko Kohtake} } @article {bnh-1600, title = {Informal Volunteerism in Emergencies and Disasters: A Literature Review}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

This paper examines the role of informal volunteers in emergency and disaster management. It explores the ways ordinary citizens volunteer their time, knowledge, skills and resources to help others in times of crisis. First, volunteerism in emergencies and disasters is explored. Traditional definitions of volunteerism are examined and it is argued that less rigid definitions are needed to fully recognise and value citizen contributions to emergency and disaster management. Second, the role of informal volunteers in emergencies and disasters is explored. Research on convergence behaviour in disasters and the phenomenon of emergence is discussed, before examples of informal volunteerism are discussed. Third, the implications of informal volunteerism for emergency and disaster management are discussed.

}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-2354, title = {Out of uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering: Annual project report 2014-2015}, number = {147}, year = {2015}, month = {02/11/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Out of Uniform: building community resilience through non-traditional emergency volunteering project aims to support the development of new and more inclusive models of volunteering for the emergency management sector. Its underlying purpose is to assist the sector to harness the benefits of engaging with and supporting a wider range of {\textquoteleft}non-traditional{\textquoteright} and unaffiliated volunteers while addressing associated risks.

The three-year project is being undertaken by researchers at the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT University, led by Professor John Handmer. The project methodology involves three key activities: literature reviews, case studies, and a cross-case analysis and evaluation of alternative emergency volunteering models.

A key outcome from the project will be practical guidance for end users on supporting key types of non-traditional emergency volunteering.

Key outputs from the project this year included:

Key stakeholder engagement activities this year were: a 3-monthly project newsletter, an annual stakeholder communication workshop in October 2014, a project teleconference to assist case study selection in March 2015, and participation in the BNHCRC{\textquoteright}s Research Advisory Forum in April 2015.

Three PhD students undertaking associated projects also began or advanced their research this year. Their proejcts focus on: the use of volunteered geographic information in community engagement for bushfire preparation (Billy Haworth, University of Western Sydney), community-led recovery in the 2013 Forcett bushfires in Tasmanias (Fiona Jennings, RMIT University), and social capital, inclusive volunteer engagement and community resilience (Julie Molloy, RMIT University).

The next year of the project will see the Out of Uniform project move from conducting case studies to conducting cross-case analysis and beginning work to evaluate alternative models of emergency volunteering through workshops with end users.

}, issn = {147}, author = {John Handmer and J Whittaker} } @article {bnh-2572, title = {Progress made with public awareness-raising activities aimed at building both rural and urban disaster resilience}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {30}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

Professor John Handmer and Dr Briony Towers, RMIT, summarise the findings of research into informing populations about disaster risk.

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-30-01-05}, author = {John Handmer and Briony Towers} } @conference {bnh-1622, title = {Promoting Child Resilience to Disasters: Policy, Practice, Research Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, month = {02/2015}, abstract = {

The recently published Synthesis Report on the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2013) places children at the centre of successful adaptation to disasters: {\textquotedblleft}In particular children and youth have been singled out as having specific needs in terms of school safety, child-centred risk assessments and risk communication. But, more importantly, if appropriately educated and motivated on disaster risk reduction, they will lead and become the drivers of change.{\textquotedblright} Equally, here in Australia, the role of disaster education in managing disaster risk has been recognised as a major priority in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Australian Government, 2011). While Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CC-DRR) is increasingly popular across agencies and organisations around the world, rigorous empirical research on the efficacy of the approach is limited. This three-year program of research is planning a range of projects, unified through various means, and an integrated narrative, to increase the reach and impact of CC-DRR education within communities in Australia and New Zealand.

}, author = {Kevin Ronan and Briony Towers and Kate McAuslan and Vicki Johnson and Eva Alisic and Susan Davie and John Handmer and Katharine Haynes and Nick Ireland and Marla Petal and Avianto Amri and David Johnston} } @article {bnh-1951, title = {A review of informal volunteerism in emergencies and disasters: Definition, opportunities and challenges}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {13}, year = {2015}, month = {07/2015}, pages = {358-368}, chapter = {358}, abstract = {

Despite highly specialised and capable emergency management systems, ordinary citizens are usually first on the scene in an emergency or disaster, and remain long after official services have ceased. Citizens often play vital roles in helping those affected to respond and recover, and can provide invaluable assistance to official agencies. However, in most developed countries, emergency and disaster management relies largely on a workforce of professionals and, to varying degrees, volunteers affiliated with official agencies. Those who work outside of such systems have tended to be viewed as a nuisance or liability, and their efforts are often undervalued. Given increasing disaster risk worldwide due to population growth, urban development and climate change, it is likely that {\textquoteleft}informal{\textquoteright} volunteers will provide much of the additional surge capacity required to respond to more frequent emergencies and disasters in the future. This paper considers the role of informal volunteers in emergency and disaster management. Definitions of volunteerism are reviewed and it is argued that there is an overemphasis on volunteering within, and for, state and formal organisations. We offer a broader definition of {\textquoteleft}informal volunteerism{\textquoteright} that recognises the many ways ordinary citizens volunteer their time, knowledge, skills and resources to help others in times of crisis. Two broad types of informal volunteerism are identified {\textendash} emergent and extending{\textendash} and the implications for emergency and disaster management are considered. Particular attention is given to increasing {\textquoteleft}digital volunteerism{\textquoteright} due to the greater accessibility of sophisticated but simple information and communication technologies. Culture and legal liability are identified as key barriers to greater participation of informal volunteers. We argue that more adaptive and inclusive models of emergency and disaster management are needed to harness the capacities and resilience that exist within and across communities.

}, keywords = {Emergency; Disaster; Citizen action; Emergence; Informal volunteerism; Resilience}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.010}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420915300388}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-1809, title = {The role of social science in the governance and management of wildland fire}, journal = {international Journal of Wildland Fire}, volume = {24}, year = {2015}, month = {03/2015}, pages = {151-152}, chapter = {151}, abstract = {

Global social-economic and environmental changes are increasing the challenges of wildfire risk management. Addressing these challenges requires perspectives beyond knowledge of the bio-physical dynamics of fire. This Special Section provides some such perspectives, including safety, children{\textquoteright}s understanding of the risk, indigenous knowledge of fire, and {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright}. Each paper highlights important challenges and ideas for fire management.

}, doi = {10.1071/WF15030}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/114/paper/WF15030.htm}, author = {Karyn Bosomworth and John Handmer and RP Thornton} } @article {bnh-2605, title = {Negotiating risk and responsibility through law, policy and planning}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {29}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, abstract = {

The 2011 National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG 2011) sets the context for natural disaster management as a {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} of all sectors of government and society, as part of building a more comprehensive approach to emergency management. However, it remains difficult to change relationships and practices to share responsibility, either between emergency management agencies and other government sectors, or between governments and at-risk communities. This paper reports on the research of three independent but complementary projects established through the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre to identify the legal, policy and planning structures and processes that could enhance integration of emergency management imperatives across public policy sectors, agencies and portfolios. This article distils and summarises some key conclusions regarding a central, yet seriously under-acknowledged facet, of developing public policy for natural hazard risk in Australia: the political and social negotiation of risk and responsibility. This is an overview paper and many of the issues raised require further exploration.

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-29-03-07}, author = {Jessica Weir and Michael Eburn and John Handmer and Barbara Norman and Dovers, Steve} } @article {BF-4290, title = {Sharing Responsibility in Australian Disaster Management - Final Report for the Sharing Responsibility Project}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, abstract = {

The Sharing responsibility project sought to open up a process of critical and reflective examination of the widely supported principle of Shared Responsibility in Australian disaster management with a focus on its meaning, significance and challenges for the way that governments and citizens work together to manage disaster risk. The ultimate aim of the project was to support stakeholders of Australian disaster management to make decisions about how to pursue a vision of Shared Responsibility.

}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3950, title = {Community safety during the 2009 Australian {\textquoteleft}Black Saturday{\textquoteright} bushfires: an analysis of household preparedness and response}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, year = {2013}, month = {31/05/2013}, doi = {10.1071/WF12010}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF12010.htm}, author = {J Whittaker and Katharine Haynes and John Handmer and Jim McLennan} } @article {BF-3245, title = { Changing the rules of the game: mechanisms that shape responsibility-sharing from beyond Australian fire and emergency management.}, journal = {The Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {27}, year = {2012}, month = {April 2012}, chapter = {7}, abstract = {In this paper, we look beyond Australian fire and emergency management to compare ways that responsibility-sharing {\textendash} broadly conceived {\textendash} has occurred in other places and sectors where risks to community safety are faced. Responsibility-sharing occurs any time there is collective action, and formal and informal institutions provide the {\textquotedblleft}rules of the game{\textquotedblright} that prescribe how responsibility should be shared amongst the parties involved. We reviewed a broad sample of risk research literature in order to examine by what mechanisms responsibility-sharing institutions have been shaped in other places and sectors where risks to community safety are faced. Our review revealed more alternatives for shaping responsibilitysharing institutions than are widely considered by policy and decision makers in Australian fire and emergency management. It therefore raises an important question about why certain mechanisms are chosen, prioritised, overlooked or resisted in this sector. An alternative way of conceiving and pursuing shared responsibility is also discussed.}, url = {http://www.em.gov.au/Publications/Australianjournalofemergencymanagement/Currentissue/Documents/WEMA\%20Vol27No1_McLennan.PDF}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3593, title = {Estimating the economic, social and environmental impacts of wildfires in Australia}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2012}, month = {10/2012}, pages = {1 - 19}, abstract = {Wildfires often result in widespread destruction and damage to a range of economic, social and environmental assets and functions. This article presents an economic loss assessment framework which has not only been developed to value these assets, but more importantly addresses the fundamental economic principles commonly lacking in other frameworks. Five severe south-eastern Australian wildfires were used as case studies to examine the utility of the framework. The impact and cost data collected as part of this framework provide valuable information for a range of applications, such as measuring the efficacy of government response and recovery arrangements and programmes, shaping policies and providing businesses with disaster information on which they can make decisions. Some areas requiring further research were identified. These included the need to develop consistent values for estimating environmental impacts, in the form of ecosystem service values for south-eastern Australia, and a standardized survey format for valuing a range of indirect economic and social impacts.}, issn = {1747-7891}, doi = {10.1080/17477891.2012.703490}, author = {Catherine Stephenson and John Handmer and Betts, Robyn} } @proceedings {BF-3759, title = {Exploring the capacity to adapt to climate change in the fire management sector of Victoria, Australia}, year = {2012}, pages = {138}, publisher = {IAWF}, abstract = {Like most policy sectors, climate change adaptation in wildland fire management will involve more than a tweaking of existing planning and management approaches. It requires a learning capacity to enable adaptation and possibly transformation of policies, programs, and governance. Such adaptive governance requires reflection upon underlying policy frames and informal institutions that structure a sector{\textquoteright}s governance, policies and programs, and therefore its adaptive capacity. This paper discussed research that explored underlying frames and informal institutions of the fire management sector}, url = {http://www.iawfonline.org/pdf/3rd\%20Human\%20Dimensions\%20Conference\%20Proceedings\%20-\%20FINAL.pdf}, author = {Karyn Bosomworth and John Handmer and Dovers, Steve} } @proceedings {BF-3752, title = {From risk to resilience? Reframing shared responsibility in Australian disaster policy }, year = {2012}, pages = {71-74 }, publisher = {IAWF}, abstract = {An important shift is occurring in national disaster policy discourse in Australia from the language of risk to that of resilience. This shift that is likely to influence the theory and practice of community bushfire/wildfire safety. The key elements in the shift are laid out in the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, released by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in February 2011 (COAG 2011). The strategy, hereafter referred to as the {\textquoteleft}NSDR{\textquoteright}, calls for a {\textquotedblleft}whole-of-nation, resilience-based approach{\textquotedblright} (p.ii) to managing disasters. It states that {\textquotedblleft}the concept of disaster resilience builds upon rather than replaces existing strengths and arrangements{\textquotedblright} (COAG 2011, p.3) in emergency management, suggesting that it may not be asking for significant changes to existing practices. Yet it is also described as heralding a {\textquotedblleft}paradigm shift{\textquotedblright} in disaster management in this country (Wilkins 2010) and as potentially being the {\textquotedblleft}single most significant policy initiative in the field of disaster management in Australia{\textquoteright}s history{\textquotedblright} (McArdle \& Archer 2011, p.1). This raises an important question: what is so different in the NSDR{\textquoteright}s vision that warrants such claims, and what are its potential implications for community bushfire safety? ...}, url = {http://www.iawfonline.org/pdf/3rd\%20Human\%20Dimensions\%20Conference\%20Proceedings\%20-\%20FINAL.pdf}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3118, title = {Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, year = {2012}, month = {01/2012}, pages = {1 - 15}, abstract = {In the context of risk, the concept of responsibility incorporates the notion that certain parties have a prospective obligation to undertake actions to manage risk. However, differences in judgements about which parties are responsible for which aspects of risk management often lead to social conflict. This paper uses the heuristic of a {\textquoteleft}responsibility continuum for risk management{\textquoteright} to highlight how judgements of the obligations of different parties to manage risk are underpinned by particular ways of framing responsibility-sharing. It then uses the heuristic to examine the case of a Royal Commission enquiry into Australia{\textquoteright}s deadliest bushfire (wildfire) event, known as Black Saturday. It argues that the Royal Commission reframed responsibility-sharing away from an emphasis on the self-reliance of at-risk communities towards a greater degree of responsibility for government emergency management agencies. This is particularly the case when fire conditions are extreme and where vulnerable people are at risk. This position runs counter to an international trend in policy towards placing greater responsibility for risk management on at-risk communities. However, the Commission{\textquoteright}s analysis is strong for the distribution of responsibility across government and between government and communities, but is weaker across the government{\textendash}private sector interface and where the factors underlying vulnerability are concerned.}, issn = {1747-7891}, doi = {10.1080/17477891.2011.608835}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3124, title = {Responding to bushfire risk: the need for transformative adaptation}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {7}, year = {2012}, month = {01/2012}, pages = {014018}, abstract = {The 2009 {\textquoteleft}Black Saturday{\textquoteright} bushfires led to 172 civilian deaths, and were proclaimed as one of Australia{\textquoteright}s worst natural disasters. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission was set up in the wake of the fires to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of each fatality. Here, results from an analysis undertaken for the Commission to examine the household preparedness policy {\textquoteleft}Prepare, Stay and Defend, or Leave Early{\textquoteright} ({\textquoteleft}Stay or Go{\textquoteright}), plus an examination of the Commission{\textquoteright}s recommendations, are explored in the broader context of adaptation to bushfire. We find Victoria ill adapted to complex bushfire risk events like Black Saturday due to changing settlement patterns and the known vulnerabilities of populations living in fire prone areas, and increasingly in the future due to the influence of climate change extending fire seasons and their severity. We suggest that uncertainty needs to be better acknowledged and managed in fire risk situations, and that the responsibility for fire preparedness should be more justly distributed. We suggest that a transformation in adaptation is required to effectively manage complex bushfire risk events like Black Saturday, and provide four key ways in which transformation in bushfire preparedness could be achieved.}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014018}, author = {O{\textquoteright}Neill, Saffron J and John Handmer} } @article {BF-3098, title = {Vulnerability to bushfires in rural Australia: A case study from East Gippsland, Victoria}, journal = {Journal of Rural Studies}, year = {2012}, month = {1/2012}, abstract = {This paper investigates the nature and causes of vulnerability to bushfires in the Wulgulmerang district of East Gippsland, Victoria, in south-eastern Australia. In 2003 bushfires devastated the small population of this isolated farming district, destroying homes, agricultural assets and public infrastructure. The fires also adversely affected the health, livelihoods and social lives of many local people. The paper examines: (i) how and why people were exposed to hazards during the bushfires; and (ii) how and why people were differentially capable of coping and adapting to the fires{\textquoteright} impacts. Qualitative methods were primarily used to investigate these questions, including semi-structured interviews with residents and landholders of the district and others who responded to the fires in an official or unofficial capacity. Vulnerability is shown to arise from the circumstances of people{\textquoteright}s everyday lives, which are shaped by factors both within and beyond their control. Local pressures and challenges {\textendash} such as drought, declining farm incomes, depopulation, and the inaccessibility of essential services {\textendash} are shown to increase people{\textquoteright}s exposure to hazards and reduce their capacities to cope and adapt. The paper demonstrates the fundamental importance of sustainable livelihoods and regional economic vitality to the long-term goal of vulnerability reduction.}, doi = {10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.11.002}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer and Mercer, David} } @article {BF-3119, title = {Concept review Framing challenges for sharing responsibility}, year = {2011}, month = {09/2011}, abstract = {Introduction This report presents key findings from the first stage of the Sharing Responsibility project, which aims to support stakeholders of the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector to make decisions about how to address the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility for risk management and community safety. The goal of the first stage of the project{\textemdash}the {\textquoteleft}Stage 1 concept review{\textquoteright}{\textemdash}was to develop a conceptual framework to guide the Sharing Responsibility project that incorporated multiple ways of understanding and framing the underlying challenges of responsibility-sharing. The idea of frames is an important one underpinning this report. Frames are the {\textquotedblleft}underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation{\textquotedblright} (Sch{\"o}n \& Rein, 1994, p. 23) that people use to interpret and understand complex issues. The way decision makers, researchers and other stakeholders frame a risk management problem shapes what solutions they see as most viable, which information they use to make decisions, and which arguments they deem legitimate (Vaughan \& Seifert, 1992, p. 121). This report is based on the premise that reflecting on the impact of frames is important for developing a more nuanced understanding of the meaning of shared responsibility for Australian fire and emergency management. Background The Stage 1 concept review was carried out through a type of narrative literature review known as an interpretive, integrative review (Whittemore \& Knafl, 2005). In order to capture the widest range of approaches used in research to frame responsibility-sharing challenges in risk management, the review included studies of risk management in a wide range of political systems, and across various sectors such as public health, transport, new technologies and policing. In order to determine the scope of the review, the concept of responsibility needed to be examined. The idea of responsibility itself can be framed in different ways. In the context of sharing responsibility, views about what is being shared inevitably shape positions on how to share it. Four different but interrelated facets of responsibility are discernible in discussions across different disciplines, as well as in common usage of the term: obligation, accountability, causality and trustworthiness. A common emphasis in discussions of responsibility is its fundamental relationship with freedom and constraint. Three aspects of this relationship are highlighted in research literature: freedom of choice, constraint in acting, and capacity to act. A third important aspect of responsibility as an idea is its intricate relationship with risk. These two concepts are connected through the common importance of agency {\textendash} or free choice - to both. As with responsibility, concepts of risk are often linked with the exercise of human choice through decision-making. The Stage 1 concept review incorporated research studies that combined two broad but pivotal themes: risk management (Theme 1); and, responsibility-sharing issues (Theme 2). For theme 1, {\textquoteleft}risk management{\textquoteright} was interpreted broadly and included some scenarios that are not explicitly analysed through the lens of {\textquoteleft}risk{\textquoteright}. Theme 2 involved scenarios of collective risk management in which issues of how to share or distribute responsibility amongst the different parties involved were raised or addressed in some way.}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3120, title = {Policy review Mechanisms for sharing responsibility A report of the Sharing Responsibility project}, year = {2011}, month = {10/2011}, abstract = {Introduction Challenges for sharing responsibility to manage risk and community safety are not only experienced in Australia, nor are they restricted to the field of fire and emergency management. Rather, finding ways to share responsibility amongst multiple parties is a challenge faced across a range of sectors that deal with risk and uncertainty. Risk research literature abounds with studies that expose responsibility-sharing issues in fields such as environmental management, public health, workplace safety, food safety, transportation, policing, new technologies and disaster management. This report presents findings from a review of different types of mechanisms that have been used to influence the way responsibility for risk management is shared amongst different parties across a range of contexts. The review represents the third stage of a five-staged project that aims to support stakeholders of the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector to make decisions about how to address the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility for risk management (see Figure 1.1). The Sharing Responsibility project is a component of the {\textquoteleft}Understanding Risk{\textquoteright} research program of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). Background The rationale for the Stage 3 policy review stems from three central positions: 1. That sharing responsibility is an important dilemma faced by the Australian fire and emergency management (FEM) sector; 2. That reflecting on the impact of frames is necessary for taming the {\textquoteleft}wicked{\textquoteright} problem of sharing responsibility; 3. That stakeholders of Australian FEM can draw valuable lessons from reflecting on the way responsibility is shared in other places and in other sectors. The first of these positions is widely supported within and also beyond Australian FEM. Regarding the second position, an underlying goal of the Stage 3 policy review, and indeed the Sharing Responsibility project as a whole, is to stimulate what Sch{\"o}n and Rein (1996; 1994) call being {\textquoteleft}frame-reflective{\textquoteright}. Being frame-reflective refers to the people, groups and organisations that are engaged in the policy-making process acknowledging and identifying different perspectives that exist, and purposefully querying the implications of the way they{\textemdash}and other stakeholders{\textemdash}frame problems. The third position recognises that drawing on experiences and ideas from other places and sectors is a powerful way to stimulate frame-reflection. It helps people to see beyond the usual boundaries and discourses in which they operate to {\textquoteleft}see{\textquoteright} problems in new ways and consider solutions that might otherwise remain hidden. Key concepts that underpin this report include those of risk, risk management, responsibility, collective action, institutions, governance and mechanisms. An inclusive concept of risk is adopted that incorporates multiple components, any one of which may be addressed through different risk management approaches. Like risk, the concept of responsibility is a complex, multi-faceted one. However, all facets of responsibility derive in some way from the existence of rules, norms and expectations in society that specify the rights and obligations associated with particular roles and relationships. Essentially, some form of responsibility-sharing occurs whenever there is collective action, and institutions have a central role in the way responsibility is shared. Importantly, most forms of risk management are multiparty undertakings, and hence involve some form of collective action. Institutions provide the shared rules, norms and expectations{\textemdash}or standards{\textemdash}through which responsibilities for risk management can be attributed, actioned and assessed. The term mechanism is used in this report to refer to any process used to establish or alter institutions for responsibility-sharing amongst parties engaged in collective action to manage risks.}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-3132, title = {A review of operations research methods applicable to wildfire management}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Across the globe, wildfire-related destruction appears to be worsening despite increased fire suppression expenditure. At the same time, wildfire management is becoming increasingly complicated owing to factors such as an expanding wildland{\textendash}urban interface, interagency resource sharing and the recognition of the beneficial effects of fire on ecosystems. Operations research is the use of analytical techniques such as mathematical modelling to analyse interactions between people, resources and the environment to aid decision-making in complex systems. Fire managers operate in a highly challenging decision environment characterised by complexity, multiple conflicting objectives and uncertainty. We assert that some of these difficulties can be resolved with the use of operations research methods.Wepresent a range of operations research methods and discuss their applicability to wildfire management with illustrative examples drawn from the wildfire and disaster operations research literature.}, issn = {1049-8001}, doi = {10.1071/WF10129}, author = {Minas, James P. and John Hearne and John Handmer} } @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} } @article {BF-2507, title = {Community Bushfire Safety: A Review of Post-black Saturday Research}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {25}, year = {2010}, pages = {7-13}, abstract = {Following the {\textquoteright}Black Saturday{\textquoteright} bushfires of 7 February 2009, a number of research reports on community bushfire safety were presented to the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. These include reports from the CFA, OESC, Bushfire CRC and Department of Justice. These reports have different research aims and employ a range of methods and samples. Some reports investigate community safety issues during the Black Saturday bushfires, while others examine preparedness and intentions for future fires. This paper reviews these reports to identify common findings, inconsistencies and gaps relating to community safety during bushfires, and discusses the implications of methodological differences for research findings.}, url = {http://www.ema.gov.au/www/emaweb/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/\%289A5D88DBA63D32A661E6369859739356\%29~WEMA+Vol25No4_Whittaker+\&+Handmer.PDF/$file/WEMA+Vol25No4_Whittaker+\&+Handmer.PDF}, author = {J Whittaker and John Handmer} } @inbook {BF-1227, title = {Preparing for Bushfires: The public education challenges facing fire agencies}, booktitle = {Community bushfire safety}, year = {2008}, publisher = {CSIRO Publishing}, organization = {CSIRO Publishing}, chapter = {117-126}, author = {Paton, Douglas and Wright, Lyndsey}, editor = {John Handmer and Katharine Haynes} } @inbook {BF-1277, title = {Property Safety: judging structural safety}, booktitle = {Community bushfire safety}, year = {2008}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/5819.htm }, author = {Justin Leonard}, editor = {John Handmer and Katharine Haynes} } @article {BF-1245, title = {Bushfire Management: Why, Where and How Economics Matter?}, journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland.}, year = {2007}, author = {Gaminda Ganewatta and John Handmer} } @article {BF-2361, title = {Communicating uncertainty via probabilities: The case of weather forecasts}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, volume = {7}, year = {2007}, month = {2007}, pages = {79 - 87}, abstract = {Capturing uncertainty through numerical probabilistic statements is orthodoxy in risk science{\textemdash}and most of science and technology. There are a wide range of views on the utility of such statements for risk communication, and they are often seen as being central to the failure to generate common understanding about risks between science and non-scientists. The extent to which probability statements are understood is unclear. If such statements are misunderstood by many, what alternatives might communicate uncertainty better? These questions are examined in the context of daily weather forecasts. The probabilities used in such statements concern daily events experienced by everyone, unlike the extremely small probabilities about unfamiliar events often used in risk communication. If people do not understand weather forecasts, there is little hope that statements about unfamiliar events using unfamiliar language will be understood. Some jurisdictions use numerical probabilistic statements on the likelihood of precipitation, and a variety of qualitative or categorical forecasts are also used. Drawing on a range of sources including public surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the paper examines public understanding of probabilities and public and specialist understanding of verbal categorical forecast terms. The majority of those surveyed have basic understanding about probabilities as used in weather forecasts, but significant groups do not. However, there was limited agreement among forecasters on what the probabilistic statements meant. Similarly, there was limited shared meaning between forecasters and the public on the verbal forecast expression examined.}, doi = {10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.002}, author = {John Handmer and Proudley, B} } @inbook {BF-1242, title = {Economics of Bushfire Management}, booktitle = {Community Bushfire Safety}, year = {2007}, publisher = {CSIRO Publishing/ Bushfire CRC}, organization = {CSIRO Publishing/ Bushfire CRC}, isbn = {9.78064E+12}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/5819.htm}, author = {Gaminda Ganewatta and John Handmer}, editor = {John Handmer and Katharine Haynes} } @inbook {BF-1241, title = {Managing Wildfire Hazards in Fire-prone Landscape: Australian Experiences. }, booktitle = {A Book on Managing Extreme Events in Environment}, year = {2007}, author = {Gaminda Ganewatta and Choong, Wei and John Handmer}, editor = {Professor Mohan Munasinghe} } @article {BF-1247, title = {Recognising Reality: Questioning the automatic evacuation reflex in wildfires.}, year = {2006}, author = {John Handmer} } @article {BF-1243, title = {Framework for measuring the value of Australian Bureau of Meteorology fire weather services.Economic Value of Fire Weather Services.}, number = {112}, year = {2005}, month = {Oct-05}, pages = {37-66}, institution = {BMRC }, type = {Research Report}, url = {http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/pubs/researchreports/RR112.pdf plus on FKN}, author = {Gunasekera, D and Gonzalez-Caban, A and John Handmer and Graham A. Mills and Bannister, T} } @article {BF-2316, title = {Is staying at home the safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence for an Australian approach*}, journal = {Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards}, volume = {6}, year = {2005}, month = {2005}, pages = {81 - 91}, abstract = {Australian bushfire agencies have a position that people in the path of a fire should either prepare, stay and defend their properties, or leave the area well before the fire front arrives. The position is based largely on observations that evacuating at the last minute is often fatal and that, generally, a key factor in house survival during a wildfire is the presence of people in the building. In practice, full implementation of the position has been difficult for a range of reasons. As part of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) research effort left angle bracketwww.bushfirecrc.comright-pointing angle bracket, our project is examining the evidence base for this position and aims to suggest ways of improving implementation. We have found that the available evidence, which goes back some 60 yr, strongly supports the Australian position. The position is supported on the grounds of both improved safety and reduced property loss. The evidence also shows that the most dangerous option{\textemdash}and the cause of most fatalities{\textemdash}is last minute evacuation.}, doi = {10.1016/j.hazards.2005.10.006}, author = {John Handmer and Tibbits, Amalie} }