私人消防掩体(消防掩体)的政策发展受阻是适应澳大利亚森林大火危机的障碍

IF 3 3区 农林科学 Q2 ECOLOGY
D. Bowman, Phillipa C. McCormack
{"title":"私人消防掩体(消防掩体)的政策发展受阻是适应澳大利亚森林大火危机的障碍","authors":"D. Bowman, Phillipa C. McCormack","doi":"10.3390/fire6080298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Victorian Government Inquiry into wildfires that killed 173 people in 2009 has driven an Australian policy shift from self-evacuation or staying and defending a well-prepared property (‘go or stay’) to self-evacuation under catastrophic fire weather (‘leave early’). The Inquiry also led to the establishment of national ‘performance standards’ for Private Fire Shelters (PFSs, that are also known as bunkers). Nonetheless, the incorporation of PFSs into national bushfire policy remains embryonic, with only Victoria having streamlined accreditation and planning approval processes. Arguments against PFSs include potentially engendering complacency about preparing dwellings to survive fire and encouraging risky behaviour in response to a fire threat. Counteracting these arguments is research that shows that residents without PFSs have low engagement with bushfire preparation and typically delay evacuation. In any case, because wildfire is unpredictable, it is accepted that self-evacuation plans must have fallback positions that include sheltering ‘in place’ from the bushfire, making properly used and well-maintained PFSs an important element of bushfire safety. A less discussed barrier to PFS uptake outside Victoria appears to hinge on a lack of clarity about obligations for their design, certification, and consistency with planning approvals. The escalating Australian fire crisis demands much greater research and development in legal frameworks, policy and planning processes for PFSs, as well as design and construction standards. Progress in enhancing Australian laws and policies on this issue may offer important opportunities for other jurisdictions that will experience similar challenges as climate change intensifies fire regimes around the world.","PeriodicalId":36395,"journal":{"name":"Fire-Switzerland","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arrested Policy Development of Private Fire Shelters (Fire Bunkers) Is a Barrier to Adaptation to the Australian Bushfire Crisis\",\"authors\":\"D. Bowman, Phillipa C. McCormack\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/fire6080298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Victorian Government Inquiry into wildfires that killed 173 people in 2009 has driven an Australian policy shift from self-evacuation or staying and defending a well-prepared property (‘go or stay’) to self-evacuation under catastrophic fire weather (‘leave early’). The Inquiry also led to the establishment of national ‘performance standards’ for Private Fire Shelters (PFSs, that are also known as bunkers). Nonetheless, the incorporation of PFSs into national bushfire policy remains embryonic, with only Victoria having streamlined accreditation and planning approval processes. Arguments against PFSs include potentially engendering complacency about preparing dwellings to survive fire and encouraging risky behaviour in response to a fire threat. Counteracting these arguments is research that shows that residents without PFSs have low engagement with bushfire preparation and typically delay evacuation. In any case, because wildfire is unpredictable, it is accepted that self-evacuation plans must have fallback positions that include sheltering ‘in place’ from the bushfire, making properly used and well-maintained PFSs an important element of bushfire safety. A less discussed barrier to PFS uptake outside Victoria appears to hinge on a lack of clarity about obligations for their design, certification, and consistency with planning approvals. The escalating Australian fire crisis demands much greater research and development in legal frameworks, policy and planning processes for PFSs, as well as design and construction standards. Progress in enhancing Australian laws and policies on this issue may offer important opportunities for other jurisdictions that will experience similar challenges as climate change intensifies fire regimes around the world.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fire-Switzerland\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fire-Switzerland\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/fire6080298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fire-Switzerland","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/fire6080298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

维多利亚州政府对2009年造成173人死亡的山火的调查,促使澳大利亚的政策从自我疏散或留下来保护准备良好的房产(“不走就走”)转变为在灾难性的火灾天气下自我疏散(“提前离开”)。调查还导致了私人消防掩体(pfs,也被称为掩体)的国家“性能标准”的建立。尽管如此,将PFSs纳入国家森林火灾政策仍处于萌芽阶段,只有维多利亚州简化了认证和规划审批程序。反对pfs的理由包括,可能会让人们对准备房屋以抵御火灾产生自满情绪,并鼓励人们在应对火灾威胁时采取冒险行为。与这些论点相反的是,研究表明,没有pfs的居民对森林火灾准备工作的参与度较低,通常会推迟疏散。在任何情况下,由于野火是不可预测的,人们普遍认为自我疏散计划必须有退路,包括在丛林大火中“就地”躲避,使正确使用和维护良好的pfs成为丛林火灾安全的重要因素。在维多利亚州以外,人们较少讨论PFS采用的障碍似乎在于其设计、认证和与规划批准的一致性的义务缺乏明确性。澳大利亚不断升级的火灾危机要求对pfs的法律框架、政策和规划过程以及设计和施工标准进行更多的研究和开发。随着气候变化加剧了世界各地的火灾制度,加强澳大利亚在这一问题上的法律和政策的进展可能为其他将面临类似挑战的司法管辖区提供重要的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arrested Policy Development of Private Fire Shelters (Fire Bunkers) Is a Barrier to Adaptation to the Australian Bushfire Crisis
The Victorian Government Inquiry into wildfires that killed 173 people in 2009 has driven an Australian policy shift from self-evacuation or staying and defending a well-prepared property (‘go or stay’) to self-evacuation under catastrophic fire weather (‘leave early’). The Inquiry also led to the establishment of national ‘performance standards’ for Private Fire Shelters (PFSs, that are also known as bunkers). Nonetheless, the incorporation of PFSs into national bushfire policy remains embryonic, with only Victoria having streamlined accreditation and planning approval processes. Arguments against PFSs include potentially engendering complacency about preparing dwellings to survive fire and encouraging risky behaviour in response to a fire threat. Counteracting these arguments is research that shows that residents without PFSs have low engagement with bushfire preparation and typically delay evacuation. In any case, because wildfire is unpredictable, it is accepted that self-evacuation plans must have fallback positions that include sheltering ‘in place’ from the bushfire, making properly used and well-maintained PFSs an important element of bushfire safety. A less discussed barrier to PFS uptake outside Victoria appears to hinge on a lack of clarity about obligations for their design, certification, and consistency with planning approvals. The escalating Australian fire crisis demands much greater research and development in legal frameworks, policy and planning processes for PFSs, as well as design and construction standards. Progress in enhancing Australian laws and policies on this issue may offer important opportunities for other jurisdictions that will experience similar challenges as climate change intensifies fire regimes around the world.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fire-Switzerland
Fire-Switzerland Multiple-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
15.60%
发文量
182
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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