Better bushfire safety decision-making: Making sense of complexities and challenges surrounding ‘Stay or Go’ and the Australian Fire Danger Rating System

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Graham Dwyer, John Schauble
{"title":"Better bushfire safety decision-making: Making sense of complexities and challenges surrounding ‘Stay or Go’ and the Australian Fire Danger Rating System","authors":"Graham Dwyer,&nbsp;John Schauble","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>In the context of bushfires (and other emergencies), state agencies should avoid developing policy and/or advice that locks people into rigid binary choices. In Victoria, Australia post-fire inquiries have found the bushfire safety advice often referred to as ‘Stay (<i>and defend your property</i>) or Go (<i>early before the fire arrives</i>)’ to be contradictory and competing in its logic. However, this advice continues to provide a basis for positive community safety outcomes. It can still be used effectively by policy makers and practitioners within emergency management agencies to inform and educate a highly urbanised society that has become experientially detached from bushfire. With the introduction of the Australian Fire Danger Ratings System and climate challenges ahead, it appears that logics at the core of ‘Stay or Go’ will continue to offer communities located alongside complex bushfire risk in urban, regional, and rural areas a basis for appropriate safety decisions using the best available information.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Points for practitioners</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Provides guidelines for ways in which ‘Stay or Go’ advice can continue to be used by emergency management policy makers and practitioners as a basis for positive community safety outcomes from bushfire risk.</li>\n \n <li>Challenges suggestions from significant bushfire inquiries that the logics at the core of ‘Stay or Go’ contradict each other. Staying and defending a home or leaving early offer a basis for surviving bushfire depending on individual circumstances—practitioners should ensure that this is a key message of bushfire education campaigns.</li>\n \n <li>Provides pathways for practitioners and the community to work together and co-create collaborative bushfire plans whereby preparing for bushfire risk is a shared responsibility.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"83 3","pages":"496-501"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12592","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12592","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of bushfires (and other emergencies), state agencies should avoid developing policy and/or advice that locks people into rigid binary choices. In Victoria, Australia post-fire inquiries have found the bushfire safety advice often referred to as ‘Stay (and defend your property) or Go (early before the fire arrives)’ to be contradictory and competing in its logic. However, this advice continues to provide a basis for positive community safety outcomes. It can still be used effectively by policy makers and practitioners within emergency management agencies to inform and educate a highly urbanised society that has become experientially detached from bushfire. With the introduction of the Australian Fire Danger Ratings System and climate challenges ahead, it appears that logics at the core of ‘Stay or Go’ will continue to offer communities located alongside complex bushfire risk in urban, regional, and rural areas a basis for appropriate safety decisions using the best available information.

Points for practitioners

  • Provides guidelines for ways in which ‘Stay or Go’ advice can continue to be used by emergency management policy makers and practitioners as a basis for positive community safety outcomes from bushfire risk.
  • Challenges suggestions from significant bushfire inquiries that the logics at the core of ‘Stay or Go’ contradict each other. Staying and defending a home or leaving early offer a basis for surviving bushfire depending on individual circumstances—practitioners should ensure that this is a key message of bushfire education campaigns.
  • Provides pathways for practitioners and the community to work together and co-create collaborative bushfire plans whereby preparing for bushfire risk is a shared responsibility.
更好的森林火灾安全决策:理解围绕“留下还是离开”和澳大利亚火灾危险评级系统的复杂性和挑战
在丛林火灾(和其他紧急情况)的背景下,国家机构应避免制定政策和/或建议,将人们禁锢在僵化的二元选择中。在澳大利亚维多利亚州,火灾后调查发现,丛林火灾安全建议通常被称为 "留下(保护您的财产)或离开(在大火来临之前及早离开)",这些建议在逻辑上相互矛盾、相互竞争。然而,这一建议仍然是取得积极社区安全成果的基础。应急管理机构的政策制定者和从业人员仍然可以有效地利用这一建议,为高度城市化的社会提供信息和教育,因为这个社会在经验上已经脱离了丛林火灾。随着澳大利亚火险评级系统的引入以及未来气候方面的挑战,"不走就留 "的核心逻辑似乎将继续为城市、地区和农村地区面临复杂丛林火灾风险的社区提供依据,以便利用现有的最佳信息做出适当的安全决策。 从业人员要点 为应急管理政策制定者和从业人员提供指导,使 "要么不走,要么留下 "的建议能够继续作为从丛林火灾风险中获得积极的社区安全成果的基础。 对重大丛林火灾调查中提出的 "要么留下,要么离开 "的核心逻辑相互矛盾的观点提出质疑。根据个人情况,留下并保卫家园或及早离开是在丛林火灾中幸存的基础--实践者应确保这一点成为丛林火灾教育活动的关键信息。 为实践者和社区提供合作途径,共同制定合作性丛林火灾计划,从而共同承担应对丛林火灾风险的责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信