GEOGRAPHY
3001
FULL UNIT
DISSERTATION
The
bushfire risk: community awareness and perception on the rural-urban fringe of
Melbourne.
by
John B.
Gilbert
March
2004
(Supervisor:
Dr. Carl Sayer)
Abstract
Bushfires pose a
clear and present danger to residents living on the rural-urban fringe of cities
in South Eastern Australia. They cause widespread damage to property, put
people’s lives at risk and have environmental, social and economic
repercussions. This research looks at two such communities on the margins of
Melbourne:
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek. It
examines the level of awareness and perception of the fire risk amongst the
communities and relates this to preparedness for such an event. The major focus
of the research is on Upper
Beaconsfield, where 200 residents were
surveyed and six in-depth interviews undertaken. The Ash Wednesday fires of
February 1983 badly affected this community. Diamond Creek offered an
interesting comparative study, as there had been no serious fire in the region
since 1962. Here 50 residents were surveyed to see if significant differences
were apparent. The results derived from a mixture of quantitative and
qualitative methodologies. They highlight a greater level of awareness of the
bushfire hazard in Upper
Beaconsfield in comparison to Diamond
Creek. However, they also demonstrate clear spatial differences in the level of
awareness amongst the Upper
Beaconsfield community. Perception of
the risk is influenced by several variables, most notably past experience of
major fires. New residents are more likely to be less concerned about adopting
appropriate bushfire strategies and are also more prone to underestimating the
fire risk. Efforts to increase levels of bushfire education and self-reliance
appear to have had some effect. However, there is still a degree of complacency
amongst some and over-reliance on the Country Fire Authority by others. Overall,
this study suggests a need for considerable improvement in bushfire awareness
amongst the Diamond Creek community. In addition, whilst clear progress has been
made in Upper
Beaconsfield over the past twenty
years, a significant number of residents are not as prepared as they should be.
The number of words in the
main text amounts to 10,000.
(Source of picture on
cover: www.ema.gov.au)
Acknowledgements
The author would
like to thank all those have helped make this research possible. Special thanks
go to:
1
David Packham for his advice and
encouragement.
2
Elinor Niall at the
Country Fire Authority for providing me with valuable
information.
3
Emily, Judy, Sarah, Laura
and Robert Ballantyne-Brodie for their help with the
distribution and collection of the questionnaires and for providing me with
somewhere to stay.
4
Mary and Brian McDonald for
their help and local knowledge of Diamond Creek.
5
The communities of
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek for
their willingness to participate.
6
Dr. Carl Sayer for his support and advice.
Table of
Contents
1. |
Introduction………………………………………………………….…
|
1 |
1.1. |
Context…………………………………………………………………..
|
1 |
1.2. |
The Need For
Research……………………………………………….... |
1 |
|
|
|
2. |
Bushfires: Risk
Awareness and Perception………………………….. |
3 |
2.1. |
Risk Awareness and
Perception……………………………………….... |
3 |
2.2. |
Natural and Man-Made
Hazards………………………………………... |
4 |
2.3. |
Bushfires in a Global
Context………………………………………….. |
5 |
2.4. |
Bushfires in
Australia…………………………………………………... |
6 |
2.5. |
Aims……………………………………………………………………. |
12 |
|
|
|
3. |
Study
Areas……………………………………………………………. |
13 |
3.1. |
Upper
Beaconsfield…………………………………………………….. |
13 |
3.2. |
Diamond
Creek…………………………………………………………. |
14 |
|
|
|
4. |
Methodology…………………………………………………………… |
15 |
4.1. |
Approach……………………………………………………………….. |
15 |
4.2. |
Questionnaires………………………………………………………….. |
15 |
4.3. |
Interviews………………………………………………………………. |
17 |
|
|
|
5. |
Results…………………………………………………………………. |
18 |
5.1. |
Initial
Findings………………………………………………………….. |
18 |
5.2. |
Risk Awareness and
Perception……………………………………….... |
19 |
5.3. |
Behavioural Response
to the Bushfire Risk……………………………. |
23 |
5.4. |
Spatial
Patterns…………………………………………………………. |
26 |
|
|
|
6. |
Discussion……………………………………………………………… |
31 |
6.1. |
Initial
Findings………………………………………………………….. |
31 |
6.2. |
Risk Awareness and
Perception……………………………………….... |
32 |
6.3. |
Behavioural Response
to the Bushfire Risk……………………………. |
36 |
6.4. |
Spatial
Patterns…………………………………………………………. |
41 |
|
|
|
7. |
Conclusions…..………………………………………………………… |
44 |
7.1. |
The
Research…………………….……………………………………... |
44 |
7.2. |
Suggestions for
Future Work………………………………………….... |
45 |
|
|
|
8. |
Appendices…………………………………………………………….. |
47 |
8.1. |
Pakenham-Berwick
Gazette Article: “Fighting back after
flames”……. |
47 |
8.2. |
Sample
Questionnaire………………………………………………….. |
48 |
8.3. |
Results
Summary………………………………………………………. |
50 |
8.4. |
Interview
Schedule……………………………………………………... |
52 |
8.5. |
Interview
Summaries…………………………………………………… |
53 |
|
|
|
9. |
Auto-Critique…………………………………………………………. |
56 |
|
|
|
10.
|
Bibliography…………………………………………………………... |
58 |
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Context
In January 2003
bushfires engulfed the suburbs of Canberra causing
widespread devastation to the people living in
Australia’s capital. The
scenes of destruction challenged the notion of Australian suburban bliss. By
February the fires were also threatening communities on the rural-urban
periphery of three other Australian cities: Sydney,
Melbourne and
Adelaide. The severity
of the fire season in 2003 was exceptional, especially in terms of the loss of
property and livelihood. Scenes such as those shown in Figure 1 brought the
situation to international attention. It prompted a House of Representatives
Select Committee Report entitled “A Nation Charred” (October 2003). This
collected evidence and received over five hundred submissions examining what had
gone wrong and what lessons could be learnt. The bushfires were certainly not a
one-off event. Australia has endured
other catastrophic bushfires in the past, most notably the Ash Wednesday fires
in February 1983. In fact, no other continent is quite as susceptible to fire as
Australia (McKnight,
1995: 38). However, it has reopened the debate on bushfire management and
provided an opportunity to devise strategies to mitigate future bushfire
disasters.
Figure 1: The
Canberra Fires:
Destruction and Loss
Source:
BBC, 2003
1.2. The Need for
Research
A major part of
improving the management of bushfires is gaining a more detailed understanding
of the issues at hand. Research is a vital element in this process. Much of the
existing literature on bushfires has explored the scientific aspects of their
nature and occurrence (Luke and McArthur, 1978; Wilson, 1988). However, there is
also a growing literature that is examining the issue from a social perspective
(Lazarus and Elley; 1984; Wilson, 1984; Beringer, 2000). A good deal has been written about the need
for further studies in this area with calls in particular for more research into
the social responses to fire survival (Packham, 1992:
12). In addition, the Country Fire Authority (CFA) has suggested that more
research studies into community responses to emergencies are required (Reinholdt et al., 1999a: 2). Consequently, there is a need
to examine community awareness and perception with regards to bushfires. In
doing so, it can be related to the wider literature on environmental risk
perception that links people’s knowledge and environment to how risks are
perceived (Burton et al. 1978, 1993, Smith, 2001).
With this in
mind the present study sets out to examine two suburbs on the rural-urban fringe
of Melbourne:
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek. Through
the use of both quantitative and qualitative primary data analysis, a profile of
people’s attitudes towards the risk posed by bushfires will be developed. It
will also examine the spatial and temporal factors that influence bushfire risk
perception. The study discusses the findings in relation to other similar
research and relates it to the wider geographical issues. It concludes by
drawing from the empirical findings some practical suggestions for improving
bushfire awareness in vulnerable communities.
2.
Bushfires: Risk Awareness and Perception
2.1. Risk Awareness and
Perception
Risk is a part
of daily life at varying magnitudes and in different ways. It is commonly
distinguished from hazard, the latter being the general vulnerability from an
adverse event and the former being the probability of the hazard occurring
(Royal Society, 1983, cited in Adams, 1995; Johnston et al., 2000). People are
constantly subjected to risks, some self-inflicted and others impossible to
avoid. The human response to risk is influenced by people’s awareness and
perception of it (Clark, 1991: 8, Burton et al., 1993: 47, Löfstedt et al., 1998: 3). This significantly influences
whether people are suitably prepared for a risk they are exposed to and
determines whether they can make a rational decision in response to the
impending threat.
How aware people
are of a risk and how they perceive it depends on a range of factors including
the type, regularity, potential outcome and importance of the risk. It is also
dependent on an individual’s level of risk tolerance, knowledge, communication and of changing social views of risk (Smith,
2001: 59). When the risk is associated with a daily occurrence such as crossing
a road, people are very aware of the dangers and take appropriate actions to
minimise the risk. For example, they cross the road when it is safe to do so
(Adams, 1995: 1). However, many risks are not daily events and might only be
distant possibilities, which may be difficult to comprehend and for which there
is only limited or partial understanding. In such a
situation the question arises as to how aware people are of the potential risk
they are exposed to? Many hazards fall into this category, both natural and
man-made.
Risk is a
multi-faceted research area. The particular focus of this research is on social
aspects of risk perception. Since there is a need for risks “to be assessed
in a more qualitative way” (Smith, 2001: 55), questionnaires and interviews
are common research tools for examining people’s views and experiences of risk,
not least amongst environmental management. There is a history of using surveys
in environmental awareness studies. Saarinen and Cooke
(1970) used this method in a study of the perception of environmental quality in
Tucson,
Arizona (cited in Edgell, 1973: 28). More recently Williams et al. (1999) used
a large-scale telephone survey to examine risk perception concerning a range of
environmental hazards as part of the Savannah River Stakeholder Study in the
United
States. Their findings implicated
that researchers explore the determinants of risk perception with regards to
environmental risks (Williams et al., 1999: 1033). The importance of examining
social perspectives in the study of risks is further purported by Brown and
Damery (2002) in their examination of managing flood
risks. They call for the examination of social vulnerability and the importance
of a more “socially informed approach” in risk management (Brown and
Damery, 2002: 422).
2.2. Natural and Man-Made
Hazards
Natural
phenomena are diverse both spatially and in terms of their impact. They only
become natural hazards when they interact with humans. The presence of a
community transforms an event into a threatening situation in human terms (Keys,
1991: 1). Natural hazards, otherwise known as environmental hazards, are
generally defined as geophysical events that can potentially cause large-scale
economic damage and physical injury or death (Johnson et al, 2000: 216).
Man-made hazards make up a second category of hazards, which are the result of
human activities that generate a level of risk. Other hazards fall in a third
category somewhere between the two, displaying characteristics of both a
naturally occurring and human induced hazard (Clark, 1991: 7). It is into this
category that bushfires fall, with fires generated both by lightning strikes and
human activity. When interaction with humans occurs bushfires present a
considerable potential risk to people. The implication of this is that the
rural-urban fringe is extremely susceptible and often at the front line of
danger.
Handmer and
Penning-Roswell (1990) suggested a model of human response to a natural hazard
and how the perceived threat is influenced by three main factors: non-hazard
benefits, sense of community and ignorance to the threat (Figure 2). This model
helps to illustrate why people live in risk-prone areas. Their perception of the
risk is influenced by several factors. It is rare for people to be entirely
unaware of the existence of a natural hazard. However, perceptions differ
markedly between different people and between the public and expert opinion
(Burton et. al., 1993: 47). The unpredictability, lack of alternatives, changing
nature of the risk, belief that ‘lightning will not strike twice’ and the other
non-hazard benefits are all factors in people’s perception (Clark, 1991: 12,
Chapman: 1999, 1). The importance of community is also highlighted in the model,
which illustrates that communities can adapt to the risk and implement effective
strategies.
Figure
2: The behavioural
response to a natural hazard
Source:
Model based on Handmer and Penning-Roswell
(1990)
2.3. Bushfires in a Global
Context
Antarctica is the only continent that is totally devoid of the threat posed by bushfires. Globally, there are relatively few places that are highly susceptible to extreme fires and that are a danger to large concentrations of people. Although the risk to major population centres around the world that are at danger is increasing (Smith, 2001: 248). The coverage of bushfires in the media over the past year has provided an accurate geography of the major fire risk zones. In January and February of 2003 headlines such as “Four die as fires ravage Canberra” (The Daily Telegraph, January 20th 2003) and “Australia brace for new fire threat” (BBC, January 23rd 2003) highlighted the plight of many residents living in the suburbs of Canberra and other parts of Australia. By July reports of large fires in Mediterranean Europe, especially Southern France and Portugal were in the news coinciding with the prolonged heat wave. Most recently in October 2003 it has been California that has been suffering from bushfires. Thus, there is a spatial diversity of extreme fire events around the globe where large periods of dry, hot weather and large amounts of litter (fuel) fanned by strong winds result in high intensity, highly devastating fires.
Australia is widely regarded as the most fire-prone country in the world (Pyne, 1991; Packham, 1992: 1; Beringer, 2000: 2; Smith, 2000: 240). Some of the most intense conflagrations have been witnessed there (Bryant, 1990, 158). This made it the ideal focus for the research undertaken here. The lack of major bushfires in Australia over the most recent summer period (December 2003 to March 2004) demonstrates that the events are fortunately not yearly occurrences. However, this also shows their unpredictability and the difficulty in planning for their eventuality.
2.4. Bushfires in
Australia
South-Eastern
Australia is particularly vulnerable to the threat posed by bushfires due to a
combination of highly flammable sclerophyllous
vegetation (especially Eucalyptus), high summer temperatures (reaching
40ºc), frequent drought periods and large accumulations of dry litter (Beringer, 2000: 2). Fire is by no means a new phenomenon in
Australia (Chapman, 1999:
27). Vegetation has adapted to regular burning over the past 100 million years.
Whereas Aboriginals used fire to manage their environment, Europeans in the past
have tried to control it. The result has been a large build up of fuel and an
increased potential for fire (Smith, 1999: 103), as shown in Figure 3. As it
builds up the potential for destruction from future catastrophic bushfires
increases and the vulnerability to nearby communities is exacerbated. The net
result can be a high intensity fire that is very difficult to manage. To put it
in context, the energy generated by the fires around Omeo (North East Victoria) in February 2003 was the
equivalent of five nuclear explosions (Packham, 2003).
This is a remote part of Victoria, with a very
low population density but it destroyed thousands of hectares of forest (Figure
4) and affected rural farming communities.
As the
population has grown in Australia over the past
couple of centuries the risk that fire poses has become increasingly evident.
Increasing numbers of people live in close proximity to the bush due to its
aesthetic appeal (Chapman, 1999: 42) and other reasons such as those put forward
by Handmer and Penning-Roswell in Figure 2. In
addition, there are growing population pressures pushing the suburbs further
into the bush. It is estimated that 80% of the Australian population live in
urban or semi-rural areas (Bentley, 2003, cited in House of Representatives
Select Committee, 2003: 259). The net result is an ever-increasing risk of
property destruction, loss of life, loss of livestock and loss of livelihoods on
the rural-urban fringe.
Figure 3: Dense
sclerophyllous vegetation
(Critchley
Park,
Upper
Beaconsfield)
Source:
Author’s Collection
Figure 4:
Vegetation in the aftermath of a fire (Omeo, August
2003)
Within
Australia, Victoria is known as the “fire-state”, a reputation based on its
history of devastating fires including ‘Black Friday’ (13th January
1939) and the ‘Ash Wednesday’ fires on February 16th 1983. The
effects of the latter are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: The
cost of ‘Ash Wednesday’ in Victoria
Death
Toll |
45
|
Property
Loss |
1719 |
Estimated Direct
Losses |
A$200
million |
Farmland
destroyed |
330,000
hectares |
Livestock
loss |
25,000 |
Source:
Compiled from The Age: 1983
These figures
help to illustrate the inherent dangers faced by communities living on the
rural-urban fringe of Melbourne. Perhaps
because of the fire history in this state it is here that a lot of research on
the topic has centred. A further important element to consider regarding Ash
Wednesday was that it turned out to be a landmark event in bushfire management.
Out of the devastation came a series of pieces of legislation and a greater
emphasis on educating fire-prone communities so as to empower them with the
necessary knowledge to minimise future risks. A number of awareness campaigns
and local community schemes have been initiated in recent years, such as
Community Fireguard. This is a scheme that seeks to empower local communities at
street level (Boura, 1998). In doing so people more
actively partake in learning. This gradually develops knowledge and perception
over time (Reinholdt et al., 1999a: 58).
A large amount
of the Ash Wednesday devastation occurred in the small community of
Upper
Beaconsfield (Figure 5). Consequently,
in the aftermath of the event considerable attention was paid to this rural
suburb, both by the media and management groups. The immediate priority was to
learn lessons from this experience in order to reduce the risks from future
events. Krusel and Petris
(1992) examined thirty-two of the deaths in the area concluding that strategies
based on community groups would best help to minimise future deaths from such
disasters (Krusel and Petris, 1992: 14). Lazarus and Elley (1984) suggested that an effective survival strategy
could be based around staying at home, which offers the advantage of increasing
the chances of saving properties. This is an important consideration, as people
are not only putting their lives at threat on the rural-urban fringe but also
their livelihoods. If homes can be saved at minimal risk to residents then it is
a better solution as it reduces the cost of a fire still further. Certain
stipulations such as appropriately constructed homes and access to sufficient
water supplies are emphasised in the study. However, if these conditions can be
met then saving lives, many of which were lost due to last minute evacuations,
and saving property can go hand-in-hand. Packham
(1992) further advocates that an appropriately designed home “protects the
occupants, who then protect the house” (Packham,
1992: 11). Thus, the result was a change in bushfire management and post-Ash
Wednesday community involvement became the ‘buzzword’. This led to new bushfire
survival strategies being devised. The question remains as to how much better
prepared people living in Upper
Beaconsfield are today.
Figure 5: A
typical residence in Upper
Beaconsfield
Source: Author’s
Collection
Edgell (1973: 45)
discovered that people’s level of experience and their place of residence had an
important impact on levels of awareness and perception in the
Dandenong
Ranges. Other factors
he examined, such as gender, appeared to have less of an influence. The study
also notes that the research was undertaken in the winter months of June and
July, in other words the low fire-risk period in the state of
Victoria (as shown in
Figure 6). This may also be a factor in the study being undertaken here and, as
such, is worth taking into account in terms of how it might affect the
results.
Figure 6:
Bushfire seasons in Australia

Beringer (2000) looked
at North Warrandyte, another rural-urban
fringe community in Melbourne, which had
suffered from a fire in 1991. Via an extensive questionnaire he examined
community fire safety and once again the need for community education was
highlighted as an area needing attention. A further interesting issue to arise
was that of the expectation that “the fire authorities would protect
individual homes during a bushfire” (Beringer,
2000: 1). Half the respondents said they did expect this. Whilst the CFA protect
as many homes as they can during a serious fire, they have to prioritise their
resources on tackling the fire front and saving people’s lives. Through
education, communities become aware of this and see the benefit in such schemes
as Community Fireguard and also owning fire-fighting equipment to save their own
homes. Therefore, Beringer’s paper further illustrates
the need for a well thought out bushfire strategy and this is a further area
that the present research will examine. Nearby to North Warrandyte is the suburb of Diamond
Creek (Figure 7). Two qualitative assessments of the fire hazard were undertaken
here last year at the request of the Shire of Nillumbik’s Ratepayers Association (Incoll, 2003; Packham, 2003). This
work emphasised the need for reductions in accumulations of ground fuels, the
scraping of prohibitive planning policies and a need for greater understanding
of the levels of awareness and preparedness of the residents. In his report,
Packham recommends that “an independent survey of
attitudes of residents to the bushfire threat and their preparedness” should
be undertaken (Packham, 2003: 12). It is in reaction
to this that Diamond Creek is included within the parameters of this
research.
Figure 7: A
typical street in Diamond Creek
Source: Author’s
Collection
2.5.
Aims
With this all in
mind the following questions are set out in order to gain a deeper understanding
of specific communities and their levels of awareness and perceptions of the
bushfire risk.
1.
How aware are the
communities of Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek to the
risk of bushfires?
2.
How do residents in the
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek
communities perceive the risk from bushfires and rationalise
it?
3.
How is the behavioural
response to the potential risk of bushfires affected by levels of awareness and
people’s perceptions of the hazard?
Figure 8: The
remnants of a burning house on Ash Wednesday
(Emerald-Beaconsfield
Road)
Source: Murray and White,
1995
3.0 Study
Area
3.1. Upper
Beaconsfield
Upper
Beaconsfield is a rural suburb located
48 km south-east of Melbourne’s CBD. (DOI, 2000). It was one of the worst affected areas on Ash
Wednesday. Twenty-one people were killed and two hundred homes and businesses
were destroyed. Despite this tragic past the village today is a thriving
community, with a population of nearly 3000. A large proportion of the
population is comprised of high-income households (DOI, 2000). Due to its
location on the extreme edge of the rural-urban fringe of
Melbourne, its manageable
population size and its fire history, Upper
Beaconsfield offered an ideal location
for the research herein.
Map 1: The
location of Upper
Beaconsfield:
3.2. Diamond
Creek
Diamond Creek is
a larger suburb located 23 km north-east of the CBD of Melbourne. It is composed
predominately of young families, with almost three quarters of the population
under fifty years old (DOI, 2000). Diamond Creek is similar in character to
Upper
Beaconsfield in terms of its
rural-urban fringe location and undulating relief. However, it has a larger
population of about 12,000 (DOI, 2000) and has much more of a suburban design.
Due to this the research focused on the part of the town considered at most risk
(the area within the brown box), as it is adjacent to dense bush and a large
amount of ground fuel found in Plenty
Valley.
Map 2: The location of Diamond Creek
4.
Methodology
4.1.
Approach
A mix of
quantitative and qualitative methods have been utilised in this study. The
advantage of such an approach is that both forms of data complement each other.
For example, interviews cannot be as rigorously analysed as quantitative data.
However, they do offer possible interpretations to trends found within the
numbers. Likewise, questionnaires provide a large amount of nominal data to
highlight the major trends and empirical findings. However, they do not enable
more abstract relationships to be interpreted, for which the qualitative
dimension is more suited (Flowerdew and Martin, 1997:
195). Therefore, combining the two approaches gives a more realistic
interpretation of people’s awareness and perceptions of bushfires. Furthermore,
it helps minimise the limitations of each form of data
collection.
Lazarus and
Elley (1984) adopted a qualitative approach for a
bushfire study in Upper
Beaconsfield. For their work they
believed an in-depth investigation of a small number of people would enable them
to best interpret their results (Lazarus and Elley,
1984: 3). This study had a narrow focus: the effect of household occupancy
during the Ash Wednesday bushfire in Upper
Beaconsfield. Edgell (1973) used quantitative analysis to examine the
bushfire hazard in the Dandenong
Ranges (close to
Upper
Beaconsfield) as it enabled comparisons
between the sample populations (Edgell, 1973: 28).
Clearly, Edgell’s scope was larger and therefore
benefited from a wider range of data. Given the focus of this project lies
somewhere between these two studies it seemed to be logical to combine the two
approaches.
4.2.
Questionnaires
A copy of the
questionnaire used in this study is given in Appendix 2. The questionnaire was
designed to provide a large amount of nominal data to analyse using a chi-square
measure. The questions were based on background reading of CFA literature on
bushfire issues, past surveys on risk perception (especially Beringer, 2000) and consultation with David Packham (a Rural Fire Consultant). The survey was designed
to take no longer than two or three minutes to complete, in order to encourage
as many people as possible to fill it in. The layout of the questions, which
predominantly involved choosing from a list of options also made the
questionnaire easy to respond to. Provision for additional responses was made
where appropriate so as not to restrict people’s responses
unduly.
A systematic
method of sampling was used in which a questionnaire was delivered to one in
three houses in every street in Upper
Beaconsfield. In total three hundred
questionnaires were delivered to resident’s mailboxes over a two-day period
(August 13th and 14th 2003). Respondents were asked to
leave their forms in their mailbox for collection over the next three days
(August 15th - 17th). The logic of collecting over the
weekend was to maximise the number of possible returns. The benefit of
delivering questionnaires was that it enabled respondents to answer them without
the pressure or bias of an interviewer looking on. To compensate for the lower
response rate expected from this method reminder notes were delivered where
questionnaires had not been completed. Additional copies of the questionnaire
were also made available where necessary.
Once the
information had been collated it was coded and entered into an Excel spreadsheet
for analysis. Exploratory data analysis was undertaken and calculations of basic
descriptive measures and cross tabulations were drawn up. The major statistical
test to be used was the chi-squared statistic (χ²). Relationships were
considered significant at a probability (p level) of <0.05 in line
with Edgell (1973) and Beringer (2000). The use of a non-parametric test had the
advantage of making fewer assumptions about the parameters of the populations
from which the samples were drawn. Thus, providing a more
robust numerical analysis (Flowerdew et al., 1997:
178).
Chi-square
test
χ² = (O-E)²/ E
(O = observed frequencies,
E = expected frequencies)
Degrees of freedom (df) = number of cells
-1
The Diamond
Creek survey was essentially the same with a few place specific alterations. The
section on Ash Wednesday was not needed and was replaced with a question
designed to test people’s knowledge of fire behaviour. Eighty questionnaires
were delivered over a two-day period (September 3rd and
4th). A systematic sampling technique was applied but limited to the
north
west area of the suburb for
practicality reasons (Map 2). Fifty responses were collected in total. The small
sample size meant that statistical analysis was not appropriate for this data.
However, it is possible to compare it with the Upper
Beaconsfield survey in percentage
terms. Thus it adds an interesting comparative aspect to the work.
4.3.
Interviews
A copy of the
interview schedule is given in Appendix 4. A question on the survey had asked
for volunteers for in-depth interviews. Six were selected from the questionnaire
responses from Upper
Beaconsfield out of thirty-nine who had
expressed an interest. Due to time limitations a cross section of the people and
responses from the questionnaire was taken. Arrangements were made to conduct
the half-hour long semi-formal interviews at the respondents homes during the week of August 18th
to 25th. The conversations were taped and brief notes were also taken
(in case of technical failure). The interview schedule guided the conversation
but where additional interesting and useful points emerged these were further
pursued. In addition several questions were tailored to each interviewee.
Interviews were
subsequently transcribed to enable qualitative analysis of the data. Recurring
themes were noted from the interviews and important quotes were compiled. The
analysis involved using an interpretivist methodology
(Reinholdt et al., 1999a; Lazarus and Elley, 1984). This is based on building a model of behaviour
from the information collected. By doing so a social construct of people’s
awareness and perception is developed (Reinholdt et
al. 1999a: 4). As a result summary sheets of the major points arising from each
interview were compiled (Appendix 5). In addition, quotes and findings were used
to backup the quantitative element of the study. Interviews were also conducted
with Elinor Niall, a Community Development Coordinator
at the CFA and David Packham, a Rural Fire Consultant
with forty years of experience in this field. This helped with gaining a deeper
understanding of the topic and provided useful suggestions. For example, David
Packham suggested the comparative study in Diamond
Creek. These two interviews were not recorded but were important for background
understanding of the issues in relation to Victoria.
5.
Results
5.1. Initial
Findings
A breakdown of the
questionnaire collection is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Questionnaire
Distribution and Collection
Upper
Beaconsfield |
Diamond
Creek |
Day |
Delivered |
Collected |
Day |
Delivered |
Collected |
Wed.
13//08/03 |
200 |
|
Wed.
3/09/03 |
80 |
|
Thu. 14/08/03 |
100 |
|
Thu. 4/09/03 |
|
50 |
Fri.
15/08/03 |
|
68 |
|
|
|
Sat.
16/08/03 |
|
82 |
|
|
|
Sun.
17/08/03 |
|
50 |
|
|
|
Total |
300 |
200 |
Total |
80 |
50 |
This shows that
a return rate of 66.7% was achieved for Upper
Beaconsfield and 62.5% for Diamond
Creek. These figures compare favourably with Beringer
(2000), who had a return rate of 45%, albeit with a larger distribution.
However, 200 responses provided a good sample of the population of
Upper
Beaconsfield and the 50 responses from
Diamond Creek make for a useful comparison. Overall, it shows an encouraging
level of interest in these important issues.
The results of
the hazard-rating question are compared in Table 3 with two other similar
surveys: the North Warrandyte study (Beringer, 2000) and a study in the
Dandenong
Ranges (Raseta et al. 1987, cited in Beringer 2000).
Table 3: A
Comparison of Studies on the Question of Hazard Rating
Hazard
Rating |
Upper
Beaconsfield |
Diamond
Creek |
North Warrandyte |
Dandenong
Ranges |
Very
High |
39.5% |
20% |
52% |
36% |
High |
39% |
42% |
42% |
N/A |
Moderate /
Less |
21.5% |
38% |
6% |
N/A |
A full breakdown
of the questionnaire results for both Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek are
given in Appendix 3.
5.2. Risk Awareness and
Perception
Several
variables were explored to see what affect they had on people’s perception of
the fire hazard and their understanding of the fire risk. These were the age of
residents, the length of residency, gender, whether they had experienced Ash
Wednesday and whether they had built their own home. The results that are given
in Figures 9-14 highlight interesting differences between the findings in
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek.
Age
The perceived
risk from bushfires appears to be lower for young (18-25) and old residents
(71+) of Upper
Beaconsfield, with 37.5% and 39%
respectively seeing the hazard rating as moderate (Figure 9). In contrast, the
risk is perceived as greatest by the 41-55 age group,
with 81% of this group considering the rating high or very high. The 71+ age
group do also demonstrate the largest contrast with 46% considering the rating
very high.
The results are
somewhat different for Diamond Creek in Figure 10. Here a pattern more akin to
that of Beringer (2000) materialises, with a
decreasing perceived fire hazard with age.
Length of
Residency
60% of residents
who had been in the area for less than a year rated their knowledge of bushfires
as moderate or less (Figure 11). In fact several mentioned on their survey form
that they had not been living in Upper
Beaconsfield for long enough to really
know the situation. The percentage dropped gradually as the years of residency
increased. For those who had been in Upper
Beaconsfield for more than 21 years
only 15% considered their knowledge as moderate and in contrast 42% believed
their knowledge was very good. It was the only age group where a large
percentage classified their knowledge in the highest
category.
Other
Variables
67% of women
compared to 58% of men rated their knowledge as good or better in
Upper
Beaconsfield (Figure 12). However, a
larger proportion of men rated their knowledge as very good. The result for
Diamond Creek shows a slight advantage to the men, with 52% of males compared
with 44% rating their knowledge as good or better. This result was reflected in
Table 4, which tested respondent’s knowledge of fire behaviour. 74% of male
respondents chose the right answer (upslope) compared to only 52% of women.
Table 4: The
responses of males and females to the question: “when does
fires travel fastest?”
|
Female |
Male |
Upslope |
52% |
74% |
Downslope
|
26% |
9% |
Level
ground |
22% |
17% |
76% of
respondents who had built their own homes considered their knowledge as good or
better in Upper
Beaconsfield (Figure 13). Similarly in
the Diamond Creek study found 79% of those who had, perceived their knowledge as
at least good, compared to 69% of those who had not.
The chi-squared
statistic was used to test the significance of these relationships, the results
of which are given in Table 5. Relationships were considered statistically
significant at the p=0.05 level. The data for Diamond Creek does not meet the
criteria for being tested statistically due to the small sample size and is
therefore omitted from this table.
Table 5: Summary
of Chi-Squared Statistic Findings for Upper
Beaconsfield
Variables |
Tested
Against: |
Degrees of
Freedom |
|
Bushfire
Knowledge |
Hazard
Rating |
|
Gender |
6.07 |
5.23 |
5 |
Age |
11.5 (p=0.2)
|
2.23 |
8
|
Length of
residence |
43.5
(p=0.001) |
6.02 |
8 |
Ash
Wednesday |
31.8
(p=0.001) |
1.66 |
5 |
Built
home |
19.46
(p=0.0025) |
1.50 |
5 |
Bushfire
Strategy |
36.04
(p=0.001) |
3.83 |
11 |
Ash
Wednesday
One of the most
statistically significant results to emerge from this table is the importance of
Ash Wednesday. This is explored further in Figure 14 that compares bushfire
awareness between residents who were present at the time of Ash Wednesday in
Upper
Beaconsfield and those who have moved
in since. The Diamond Creek results are also included to add a further
dimension.
5.3. Behavioural Response
to the Bushfire Risk
This section
examines the strategies that residents have in place to cope with a bushfire and
their confidence in the management of bushfires. It also looks at the non-hazard
benefits of living in Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond
Creek.
Survival
Strategies in Upper
Beaconsfield
The percentage of people
planning to evacuate, in Table 6, is less than in 1983 (31% compared to 59.7%).
However, there are also 25.5% planning partial evacuations, where most of the
family leave but someone stays. However, 17% are undecided and plan to ‘wait and
see’.
Table 6: Have people’s
survival strategies changed in the past 20 years
in
Upper
Beaconsfield?
|
Strategies at the
time of Ash Wednesday |
Current
Strategies |
Stay at
home |
40.3% |
26.5% |
Evacuate |
59.7% |
31% |
Wait and
See |
N/A |
17% |
Partial Evac. |
N/A |
25.5% |
An important
aspect of any survival strategy is preparation. Regular maintenance of
properties and gardens helps minimise the risk of homes being destroyed in
severe fires. The questionnaire asked how regularly residence carried out
bushfire maintenance in the summer and the results are given in Figure
15.
These results
show an encouraging number of people (41%) undertaking regular maintenance every
one or two weeks. Some even added on the form that it was a part of their daily
routine during the summer months. A further 35% cleared ground litter and
guttering once a month. However, the remaining 24% said they only carried out
such maintenance once during the summer period.
Confidence in the
management of bushfires
The lower
average ratings indicate a higher degree of confidence in the management levels.
The results show that the Upper
Beaconsfield community (Figure 16) have
most confidence in the CFA (1.715) and far less confidence in the Government’s
response to bushfire issues (3.285). A similar result is found for Diamond Creek
(Figure 17). However, the CFA score a better average rating (1.56) compared with
Upper
Beaconsfield. Meanwhile, the local
community average rating is worse (2.32 compared to 2.01).
Non-hazard
benefits
There are two
responses that stand out in Figure 18 as the most popular reasons for living in
such an area. The first of which is the environmental benefit (34%) and the
second reason is that living in Upper
Beaconsfield means one is away from the
risks posed by living in city or more suburban surroundings (29%). It is a
little surprising that only 11% of people chose ‘close to friends and family’ as
the major benefit.
5.4. Spatial
Patterns
For the purpose
of analysing the results at different spatial scales Upper
Beaconsfield was broken down into three
regions and 9 sub-regions given in Table 7. Firstly, the regions are looked at
in Figures 19 and 20 and Tables 7 and 8 and secondly the sub-regions in Figures
21 and 22. The region of Diamond Creek that data was collected for is also
featured in the figures that follow.
Table 7: Regions and
sub-regions for analysis
Upper
Beaconsfield |
North
West
Region |
Southern
Region |
North East
Region |
Sub-region
1 Harpfield Road
St
Georges Road |
Sub-region
3 Abeckett Road
Armstrong
Road
Buchannan
Road
Quamby
Road
Telegraph
Road |
Sub-region
6
Burton Road
Morris
Road
Young
Street |
Sub-region
2 Brennan Avenue Fraser
Avenue
Knapton
Avenue |
Sub-region
4 Corringham Road
Fairhazel
Court Leppitt Road
Salisbury
Road |
Sub-region
7 Beaconsfield -
Emerald
Road
McArthur
Road
Stoney
Creek Road |
|
Sub-region
5
Funnell Road Surgarloaf Road Tower
Road |
Sub-region
8
Paul Grove Rosebank
Lane |
|
|
Sub-region
9 Grant Court Lenne Road
Sutherland
Road |
Regions
Interesting
spatial patterns emerge by looking at the data at regional levels. As is clear
from Figure 19, the north
west region of
Upper
Beaconsfield appears to have the
highest levels of awareness and perception of the bushfire risk. 58% of the
respondents in this region considered the hazard rating as very high compared to
28% and 39% respectively in the north east and southern sections. Confidence
with bushfire strategies appears to be universally high in all parts of
Upper
Beaconsfield. This is not as true for
Diamond Creek, which shows a larger percentage of unconfident residents (26%).
Perception of bushfire knowledge is also marked by a higher percentage (76%)
rating their knowledge as good or better in the north west region compared with
54% in the north east region and 63% in the southern region.

It is
interesting to note from Table 8 that the highest percentage
of people with a ‘wait and see’ strategy (20%) are in the north east
region. There is also a greater willingness to stay and defend homes amongst
residents in the other two regions. The results for the strategies adopted by
Ash Wednesday residents in 1983 all appear to be fairly
similar.
Table 8: A
comparison of the strategies adopted by residents in different regions of
Upper
Beaconsfield at the time of Ash
Wednesday compared with today
Residents |
Strategy |
NW |
NE |
S |
Today |
Wait and
see |
15.79% |
20.00% |
14.29% |
|
Evacuation |
28.07% |
32.50% |
31.75% |
|
Stay at
home |
24.56% |
27.50% |
30.16% |
|
Partial
evacuation |
35.09% |
20.00% |
23.81% |
Ash
Wednesday |
Stayed at
home |
42.86% |
40.00% |
37.93% |
|
Evacuated |
57.14% |
60.00% |
62.07% |
The spatial
distribution of the residents of Upper Beaconsfield that were living here at the
time Ash Wednesday shows that almost half of them lived in the southern region
(Table 9).
Table 8: Where do those who
were present at the time of Ash Wednesday live?
|
NW |
NE |
S |
Percentage |
22.22% |
31.75% |
46.03% |
The responses to
Figure 20 highlight the spatial differences very clearly. The pattern is similar
to that found in the other regional comparisons thus far. Residents in the north
west region of Upper Beaconsfield are much less likely to expect a CFA tanker
and crew to protect their home (26% ‘yes’) than residents in the north east
region (44% ‘yes’). Meanwhile the southern region falls between the two (38%
‘yes’) and the figure for Diamond Creek eclipses all of them (58%
‘yes’).
Sub-Regions
Breaking the
regions down still further into individual clusters of streets enables
micro-scale differences to be seen. Key regions to emerge are Rosebank Lane and Paul Grove (sub-region 8), which come out
with the lowest perceived knowledge of the fire risk (Figure 21) and are least
confident in the bushfire strategy they have in place (Figure 22). At the other
end of the scale, sub-region 2, consisting of Brennan, Fraser and
Knapton
Avenue, has the highest level of
perceived bushfire knowledge (83%). The highest level of confidence was to be
found in sub-region 4, which includes Leppitt
Road and
Salisbury
Road.
6.
Discussion
6.1. Initial
Findings
The devastating
Ash Wednesday fires highlight that Upper
Beaconsfield is situated in an
extremely fire-prone area. This was reflected in the results by the 39.5% of
respondents who recognised the hazard rating as very high (Table 3). A further
39% believed the hazard rating to be high, which overall shows almost four out
five people appreciate the bushfire risk. The percentage of residents who
selected ‘very high’ falls between two other similar surveys undertaken in close
geographical proximity to Upper
Beaconsfield. In
North Warrandyte 52% chose this
classification (Beringer, 2000). Meanwhile, only 36%
of people in a survey of the Dandenong
Ranges gave the
maximum hazard rating (Raseta et al., 1987, cited in
Beringer 2000). All three studies fall within areas
that are considered as extremely fire prone by the CFA. The 21.5% who considered
the hazard rating as moderate or less in Upper
Beaconsfield is an interesting finding.
This is considerably higher than the figure of 6% that was found in the
North Warrandyte survey.
Thee most likely
explanation for the differences in findings of these two surveys is fire
experience. The North Warrandyte survey was undertaken only
two years after the 1991 Warrandyte fire. Although
this was not on the scale of Ash Wednesday it meant that the events were still
fresh in people’s minds. In contrast it has been twenty years since the last
major fire in Upper
Beaconsfield. A larger number (73%) of
the respondents in North Warrandyte had been present in the
1991 fires, whilst only 31.7% of respondents in this study had experienced the
fires in 1983. This could well have led to a larger number of residents
underestimating the fire hazard. Another factor that may have been of
significance is the time of year that this research was undertaken. The
North Warrandyte survey took place in
March, at the end of the fire season. This survey was carried out in August,
during the winter time. As a result people’s general awareness levels could have
been quite different. This was a factor encountered by Edgell (1973) and thus is important to recognise. However,
if this is the case it highlights the need to reinforce awareness throughout the
year so people do not underestimate the risk.
The Diamond
Creek results reveal far less awareness from the residents of the hazard rating
than in Upper
Beaconsfield. Only 20% of the
respondents considered it to be very high and 38% thought it was moderate or
less. The last major fire to affect this suburb was in 1962 long before most of
the current residents would have been living there. Despite a longer-term
history of fire events in the vicinity, the relatively long period without such
an event appears to have resulted in a degree of complacency amongst residents.
The issues surrounding previous fire experience are explored in more depth
further in section 6.2.
6.2. Risk Awareness and
Perception
Age
It is generally
accepted that there is a decreasing perception of the fire hazard with age. The
explanations for this are that older people may consider themselves less
vulnerable due to their increased experience (Beringer, 2000: 4). An alternative prognosis is that elderly
residents are often more sceptical about the danger and thus more likely to
discount the risk (Hodge et al., 1979 cited in Reinholtd et al., 1999). To a certain extent the results for
Upper
Beaconsfield do follow this trend (χ² =
11.5, p = 0.2). Whilst this figure falls outside the probability boundaries set
for this research there is still a reasonable level of certainty that it is of
significance. However, if this is the case then one might expect the youngest
age group (18-25) to perceive the threat as greatest. The
Upper
Beaconsfield findings contradict this,
as 38% of this age group perceive the hazard as moderate. This may highlight a
larger degree of naivety amongst younger respondents who are less likely to have
had first-hand fire experience. It might also reflect the need for more bushfire
education at a younger age. This was certainly the view of one of the
interviewees who believed “not enough is done in schools to educate children
about bushfires” (Interview 4). However, they make up only 4% of the
total respondents to the survey so a more in-depth examination of this age group
would be needed to ascertain the full extent of their risk perception and
awareness.
The results in
Upper
Beaconsfield also seem to reveal the
converse side to age and that is the benefit of experience. The highest proportion of respondents perceiving the threat as very high
were in the 71+ age group. This could derive from a life spent in
fire-prone areas and the greater chance that older people have experienced
fires. On the other hand, the Diamond Creek results conform more to the pattern
found in North Warrandyte. The perception of the
fire risk is highest by the younger age groups and significantly lower with age.
It is interesting to note that in both Diamond Creek and Upper
Beaconsfield the proportion of each age
group perceiving the risk as very high is similar (around 20% in the former and
40% in the later). This indicates a core group at the heart of each area who are
very aware of the fire prone nature of their environment. These are most likely
to correspond to those who have appropriate strategies in place and who involve
themselves in community fire protection. They also represent the most
community-minded residents.
Length of
Residency
There appears to
be a clear relationship between length of residence and perceived bushfire
knowledge in Upper
Beaconsfield (χ² = 43.5, p = 0.001).
Length of residency does not necessarily translate into actual experience.
However, in the case of Upper
Beaconsfield it does as those who have
been there for more than twenty years experienced Ash Wednesday. This is very
well reflected in Figure 11, with a much larger proportion of respondents
perceiving their knowledge as very good in this category. It also appears to be
the case that those who have moved into Upper
Beaconsfield since the fires but have
been there for a number of years perceive their knowledge as better than more
recent arrivals. A certain amount of knowledge can be gained over the years from
fire scares as it increases to reality of the danger for residents. However,
very few people in the categories other than 21+ years perceived their knowledge
as very good. This is a strong indication that the severity of the Ash Wednesday
has imprinted on their memories the reality of a severe fire. It was very
evident from those interviewed that unless one had actually experienced a fire
it was very hard to be fully prepared (Figure 23).
Figure 23:
Recollections of Ash Wednesday
-“You could here
it coming; you couldn’t see anything until it was on top of you like a fast
running train.”(Interview 4)
-“That was the
most devastating fire I’ve ever seen.” (Interview 5)
-“Disasters of
that magnitude - I don’t know if anybody could be prepared. The only preparation
you can have for a disaster like that is evacuation.” (Interview
6)
Gender
There are
marginally more women in Upper
Beaconsfield perceiving their knowledge
as good or better compared to men. The reverse is true of the results for
Diamond Creek. However, an interesting result was found for the Diamond Creek
survey. The residents were asked a question designed to test their actual
knowledge of fire behaviour concerning when fire travels fastest (Table 4). This
revealed that 52% of women knew the answer compared to 74% of men. This may
reflect a tendency amongst some to rely on the knowledge of their partners, with
several people who were spoken to saying that this was the case. It is clearly
vital for all family members to be equally aware of the fire risk and fire
behaviour. However, no significant statistical relationship could be
determined.
Home
Builders
A significant
relationship between those who had built their own homes in
Upper
Beaconsfield and their levels of
bushfire knowledge materialised (χ² = 19.46, p = 0.0025). When constructing
homes in bushfire prone areas there are building requirements that have to be
adhered to. Consequently the process of building a home can draw people’s
attention to the issues of the fire hazard and increase people’s awareness. It
is also likely that people who invest their time and money into building their
own home have a greater level of interest in ensuring they are protected in the
event of a bushfire. This has been taken to an extreme by one couple that were
interviewed in this research. They had lost their home in the Ash Wednesday
fires and had decided to rebuild on the same site. They decided to design an
earth-covered house that is devoid of flammable materials (Figures 24 and 25).
The result is a house very well suited to the environment they live in. Clearly
they learnt a great deal from the process of constructing such a fire-resistant
building, which they feel confident to stay in when another fire comes through.
However, there
are also new people who have moved into the area in recent years and built their
own homes in the new estate areas such as Rosebank
Lane. The perceived bushfire
knowledge is considerably lower in this area than many other areas of
Upper
Beaconsfield. This is discussed further
in 6.4.
Figure 24: An
earth-covered home in Upper
Beaconsfield
constructed of fire
retardant materials

Figure 25: Fire
shutters to prevent burning embers coming through the
windows
Ash
Wednesday
The significance
of the Ash Wednesday experience has already been mentioned in relation to the
other variables. Upper
Beaconsfield residents who experienced
Ash Wednesday (31.7% of respondents) are more likely to have a greater bushfire
understanding than those who have not (χ² = 31.8, p = 0.001). In fact, they are
more than 2.5 times more likely to perceive their knowledge of fires as good or
very good. In addition, a far higher percentage rate their knowledge in the
highest category reflecting the awareness of the fire risk and its behaviour
that only comes from actually experience.
A good example
of this is the response to the question ‘would you expect a CFA tanker and crew
to protect your home in the event of a bushfire’. People in Upper Beaconsfield
who were not resident at the time of the fires were more likely to answer ‘yes’
to this question (40%). However, those who have experienced the fires are more
likely to understand that the CFA cannot be relied on to save a home during a
major fire (70% of Ash Wednesday residents). The response to this question is
even more striking when one examines the figure for Diamond Creek. 58% of the
respondents replied ‘yes’ which is more in line with the North Warrandyte figure of 53% (Beringer, 2000). Instead it is essential to have a realistic
strategy in place and put it into action in good time. Overall the response to
this question from Upper
Beaconsfield respondents was
encouraging especially compared to past surveys and the results from Diamond
Creek. Consequently the Ash Wednesday experience clearly does play a significant
role in bushfire awareness and perception in the Upper
Beaconsfield
community.
6.3. Behavioural Response
to the Bushfire Risk
Survival
Strategies and Planning
The benefit of
people, who are suitably prepared, staying and defending their homes during a
bushfire has been widely recognised (Lazarus and Elley, 1984; Boura, 1998). The
benefits of such a strategy are that more homes could be saved and consequently
some loss of livelihood could be thwarted and lives saved. In addition last
minute evacuations are extremely risky and were a contributing factor to several
of the lives lost during Ash Wednesday (Krusel and
Petris, 1992). This was recognised by a considerable
number of the respondents in Upper
Beaconsfield (52%). As one interviewee
put it: “policy now has moved a lot more towards staying and defending your
house” (Interview 4). However, for some a far more sensible strategy is
evacuating provided it is in good time. One interviewee said, “The only
preparation you can have for a disaster like that is evacuation”. Clearly
this is still a valid option, especially for those who are less experienced in
fire situations.
87% of
respondents in Upper
Beaconsfield said they were confident
in the strategy they had in place. This is clearly important as decisive action
and thinking can often be crucial in hazardous situations. However, it does not
entirely reflect the responses found in Table 6, which compares people’s
strategies at the time of Ash Wednesday with the strategies they have in place
today. A significant percentage (17%) do not appear to
have a strategy in place as they have decided to wait and see. This could be a
cause for concern as it is risky not to a have well thought out plan. On the
other hand, it may reflect the unpredictable nature of the bushfire threat that
makes it hard to stick to a rigid plan. Certainly the experience of Ash
Wednesday highlighted that plans can become hard to put into action. For
instance, roadblocks prevented some people from getting back to their homes to
protect them (Lazarus and Elley, 1984: 20).
An important
aspect of the basic prevention in ensuring the safety of properties during a
bushfire is regular house and garden maintenance. A majority of respondents in
Upper
Beaconsfield were doing this at least
once a month, in line with the CFA guidelines. A minority were only carrying out
maintenance once during the summer, which is dangerous strategy. The consequence
can be a large build up of ground fuel, which can severely jeopardise an attempt
to save a house during a serious fire. This suggests that while in general the
message is getting across, there is still a need to encourage more people to
take the risks seriously. However, as one interviewee put it “some people are
never going to be all that interested in it; they just think it will never
happen” (Interview 5). Thus, there is a certain level of apathy towards
these issues that is faced when trying to encourage a community to become more
self-reliant. This corresponds with the third strand of the Behavioural Response
Model (Figure 2).
Figure 26: Long
grass and overhanging trees - regular summer maintenance is essential to reduce
the build up of fuel

Confidence in
the Management of Bushfires
The results in
Figures 16 and 17 make it immediately clear that there is more confidence in the
emergency response aspect of organisation than the policies implemented at
governmental levels. This is interesting because “in practice, the acceptance
of risk by the public depends crucially on the degree of confidence placed in
the organisation charged with its management” (Smith, 2001: 74). The low
level of confidence in Federal Government probably reflects the lack of a
holistic approach with regard to bushfires. The CFA achieved the best average
from the findings, which is most likely a reflection of the efforts that have
been made to communicate with the local community through such schemes as
Community Fireguard. There generally seems to be the feeling that enough
information is distributed in Upper
Beaconsfield with only 16.5% of
respondents saying they would like to receive more. This contrasts dramatically
with the North Warrandyte findings that found 71% of
people wanted more information (Beringer, 2000). It
could be the case that information in Upper
Beaconsfield is more readily available.
For instance, at the Ash Wednesday Memorial Park in the centre of the village
there is bushfire awareness information (Figure 27 and 28).
Figure 27: The
Bushfire Awareness information
in the
Ash
Wednesday
Memorial
Park
Figure 28:
Practical advice helps residents plan their bushfire
strategy

Non-Hazard
Benefits
The vast
majority of people make a conscious decision to live in areas such as
Upper
Beaconsfield despite the risk that is
posed by bushfires. 96.5% of respondents agreed that the benefits of living in
Upper
Beaconsfield outweigh the risks. The
34% of respondents who believed environmental benefits were the major non-hazard
benefit emphasise the aesthetic appeal of the rural surroundings (Figure 18). It
is evident that many people have lived in relatively rural communities for much
of their life and that is their preference to continue to do so. A cross-section
of views is given in Figure 29.
Figure 29: the bushfire risk in
perspective
- “The
possibility of a bushfire is part of the price. But in a place like here where
the scrub is not dense and is rarely that dry even the risk itself is no that
great if you carry out some basic preparations.” (Interview
3)
-“I grew
up on a farm, fires were part of the reality of every
summer. They were very rarely serious. That (Ash Wednesday) was a rare event. I
see no reason to move.” (Interview
4)
-“I’ve
lived in other communities where one is constantly aware of the bushfires and
having to fight fires during the summer months. So it’s something that’s just
been apart of where I’ve lived” (Interview
5)
29% cited being
away from city risks as the major benefit. This is very interesting because it
indicates that for many the perceived day-to-day risks that people get exposed
to in a city environment outweigh the potentially more catastrophic, but less
prevalent, risk posed by a serious bushfire. Both these factors fall into strand
1 Behavioural Response Model (Figure 2). Less important in this survey was
strand 2, as friends and family was mentioned by only 11% of respondents. This
reflects the diminishing importance of community with increasing numbers of new
arrivals to the area.
6.4. Spatial
Patterns
Regions
The perceived
increased awareness in the bushfire risk in the
north
west region of
Upper
Beaconsfield could well reflect the
fact that this area was the worst hit during Ash Wednesday.
Critchley
Park (Figure 30) is
located here, which was the sight where eleven firemen were killed in addition
to many homes being lost. Consequently there is a better overall level of
awareness amongst the residents. In contrast the north east section was damaged
less and has a lower perceived risk awareness. In addition, the emergence of
newer developments such as in Rosebank Lane mean that
there is probably less of a general awareness of the past events in this part of
the suburb. Comparisons with the region of Diamond Creek examined highlight that
residents here have underestimated the hazard rating despite their proximity to
Plenty
Valley (Figure 31).
This further backs up the importance of the first hand
experience gained by many in Upper
Beaconsfield during the Ash Wednesday
fires. It also shows that confidence levels are higher in all three regions of
Upper
Beaconsfield in comparison with a lower
figure for Diamond Creek. There may well be a need for more advice and awareness
campaigns here to help people formulate strategies or become more confident in
existing ones.
Figure 30:
Critchley
Park in
Upper
Beaconsfield
Figure 31:
Plenty
Valley in Diamond
Creek
The varying
pattern of bushfire awareness in different sections of Upper
Beaconsfield is further emphasised by
Figure 20. It is the north east section, which again shows the lowest level of
awareness with regard to expectations of a CFA tanker and crew protecting ones
home during a serious fire (nearly 44% expecting this). This is almost twice the
expectancy of residents in the north
west region. However, Diamond
Creek is far in excess of this figure with 58%.
Sub-regions
It is also
possible to break the regions down to street level and examine which particular
roads have the highest levels of awareness. It is not surprising to discover
that streets that fall in the north east region do have some of the lowest
levels of awareness regarding bushfire issues.
Rosebank
Lane and Paul Grove (sub-region
8) come out with the lowest perceived knowledge of the fire risk (Figure 21) and
are least confident in the bushfire strategy they have in place (Figure
22). There is a perception amongst
some residents that the new arrivals are not as concerned or aware of the
bushfire risk. One interviewee said, “because
there’s more houses going up now, they start to think a bushfire can’t come
here” (Interview 6). Areas such as Rosebank were
also the hardest to get responses from, indicating a general lack of interest.
Therefore, this is clearly an area that needs to be targeted to increase
awareness and self-reliance with regard to bushfires.
Figure 32:
Rosebank
Lane: An area for
concern?

Figure 33: New
developments under construction in Upper
Beaconsfield

7.
Conclusions
7.1. The
Research
Residents in
Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek live in
the most fire-prone region of the world. The natural consequence of this is that
from time to time they will be subjected to an extreme hazard. The history of
devastating fires in Victoria is testament to
this. It is therefore essential that people are aware and prepared for such an
eventuality when, not if, it arises. In its broadest sense the results of this
research demonstrate that a reasonable number of people are aware of the nature
of the risk they are exposed to. How this translates into developing bushfire
strategies is dependent on the perception of the fire hazard at several levels:
individual, household and community. However, the results also identify groups
and areas where improvement appears to be needed. Distinctions can be drawn
between the two suburbs. Residents in Upper
Beaconsfield on the whole are more
aware of the risk than those living in Diamond Creek. The experience of Ash
Wednesday is the single most important factor in this. However, even within the
confines of the Upper
Beaconsfield community spatial
differences do emerge with the more established and community orientated streets
and regions far more aware than the newer areas. As more subdivisions of the
land take place the nature of Upper
Beaconsfield is changing. It is
therefore essential to devise ways of encouraging a seemingly more risk averse population to adopt more appropriate levels of
understanding.
Risk perception
of the bushfire threat is made up of a complicated set of interrelated factors.
This research has highlighted the importance of place specific issues most
notably Ash Wednesday. The effect of the 1983 fires, linked closely to other
variables such as length of residency, has had a dramatic impact on the
Upper
Beaconsfield community. In contrast to Diamond Creek where the last major fire was over
forty years ago. With this in mind it appear paramount efforts are made
to educate the population of the dangers as soon as possible.
The results also
highlight a considerable level of confidence in the CFA and the local community
in contrast to a fairly widespread mistrust in the Government handling of the
fire issues. Perhaps this is symptomatic of a more general public discontent
with politics. However, it shall be interesting to see how changes implemented
at a national level, as a result of the recent fire review, impact on the
perception of the handling of these issues. A range of factors were identified
that showed the reasons why people wanted to live in Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek. The
environmental benefits of the surroundings were a major factor. In addition
being away from city-associated risks was also another important reason. This
emphasises the extreme rarity of extreme fire events and the fact that the fire
risk is fairly low as far as most people are concerned in comparison to some of
the other risks one faces in life. Preparedness is vital to bushfire survival.
Adopting a well planned bushfire strategy and keeping properties and the
surroundings well maintained are two vital elements. However, the strategy also
needs to be realistic as there is no point in planning to stay and defend a
property without the necessary fire-fighting equipment such as a pump.
The changes
brought about in the management of bushfires post Ash Wednesday proved to be a
dramatic turning point in community awareness of the fire hazard. Lessons were
learnt and a whole range of policies adopted to help minimise the effects of
future extreme fires. Likewise, the upshot of the 2003 fire season has been
similar, as it has brought home the realities of the fire risk to rural-urban
fringe communities and those charged with its management. However, there is an
important difference between passively being more aware and proactively
enhancing bushfire preparedness. In Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek this
involves greater community action to educate residents and to mitigate the
dangers. Schemes such as Community Fireguard appear to work well amongst the
core group of residents who take the issues seriously. It is finding ways to
encourage more people to get involved in such activities that appear to be more
allusive. This is clearly the most pressing challenge for organisations such as
the CFA. Of course, empowering communities to be ready and safe in the
eventuality of a major fire is just one part of the bushfire management process.
It is however, a very significant one because if it is achieved successfully, it
means the CFA can concentrate on many of the other areas demanding their
attention. In doing so, the chances of minimising the devastation of future
extreme fires are increased considerably.
7.2. Suggestion
for Future Work
The inclusion of
the smaller study in Diamond Creek has provided an extremely useful comparison.
Levels of awareness are considerably lower than those found in
Upper
Beaconsfield even comparing
unfavourably with the most apathetic areas. In light of the findings in this
research there is an urgent need for a more thorough investigation. The scope
should be as wide as possible, not just in Diamond Creek but across the Shire of
Nillumbik more generally. If the small sample of the population explored in this
research proves to be representative of the town then there are clear areas that
attention needs to be focused on. Bushfire education is a part of this as well
as simply making people aware of the reality of living on the rural-urban
fringe.
There is also
the need in both Upper
Beaconsfield and Diamond Creek to find
ways to encourage the community to become more involved in fire preparedness. A
series of focus group discussions with a wide range of people in the two suburbs
could be of great benefit in highlighting how the community can be empowered and
what issues put individuals off getting involved. The obvious challenge here
would be finding a way to get a wide range of people to participate and not just
those who are already involved. Nonetheless, this study has successfully
examined the issues surrounding perception and awareness of the bushfire risk.
In doing so it provides an up-to-date examination of current levels of bushfire
preparedness in two fire-prone communities.
8.1.
Appendix 1
Pakenham-Berwick
Gazette Article, September
15th 2003
8.2.
Appendix 2 - Sample Questionnaire
Section
A: Basic Details |
|
1.
Sex: |
Female |
|
|
Male |
|
2.
Age: |
18-25 |
|
|
26-40 |
|
|
41-55 |
|
|
56-70 |
|
|
71
+ |
|
3. How long have you
lived in Upper
Beaconsfield? |
Less
than 1 year |
|
|
1-5
years |
|
|
6-10
years |
|
|
11-15
years |
|
|
16-20
years |
|
|
21 +
years |
|
4. Do you own your
own property? |
Yes
- GO TO QU. 5 |
|
|
No -
GO TO QU.7 |
|
5. Did you build your
own home? |
Yes
- GO TO QU. 6 |
|
|
No -
GO TO QU. 7 |
|
6. To what extent did
you consider the fire hazard when constructing and designing you
home? |
Sought
advice |
|
|
Didn’t
seek advice, but took it into consideration |
|
|
Not
really |
|
|
Not
at all |
|
Section
B: Risk Awareness |
7. What would you
consider the hazard rating of the area to be? |
Very
High |
|
|
High |
|
|
Moderate |
|
|
Low |
|
|
Very
Low |
|
8. What type of
bushfire strategy do you have in place? |
Wait
and see |
|
|
Evacuation |
|
|
Stay
at home |
|
|
Partial
evacuation (some family members stay, others
go) |
|
9. Do you feel
confident with the strategy you have in place? |
Yes |
|
|
No |
|
10. How would you
rate your knowledge of bushfires? |
Very
Good |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Moderate |
|
|
Poor |
|
|
Very
Poor |
|
11. In the event of a
bushfire would you expect a CFA tanker and crew to protect your home?
|
Yes |
|
|
No |
|
12. Are you happy
with the level of information about bushfires you
receive? |
Yes |
|
|
No |
|
13. How often during
the summer do you carry out house and garden maintenance on your property,
for example, ground litter removal and guttering clearance?
|
Never |
|
|
Once
during the summer |
|
|
Once
a month |
|
|
Once
a fortnight |
|
|
Once
a week |
|
Section
C: Risk perception |
|
|
14. The benefits of living in
Upper
Beaconsfield outweigh the risk
from bushfires? |
Agree -
GO TO QU. 15 |
|
|
|
Disagree -
GO TO QU. 16 |
|
|
15. What is the major
benefit of living in Upper
Beaconsfield? |
Environmental
benefits |
|
|
|
Cost
of living compared to the city |
|
|
|
Close
to friends and family |
|
|
|
Away
from city risks (pollution, crime etc.) |
|
|
|
Convenience
for work |
|
|
|
Other:
………………………………. |
|
16. Were you a
resident in Upper
Beaconsfield at the time of the
Ash Wednesday fires? |
Yes -
GO TO QU. 17 |
|
|
|
No -
GO TO QU.
19 |
|
|
17. Did you stay at
home or evacuate? |
Stayed
at home |
|
|
|
Evacuated |
|
|
18. How much better
prepared do you feel today than during the Ash Wednesday fires?
|
Much
better prepared |
|
|
|
Better
prepared |
|
|
|
The
same |
|
|
|
Less
well prepared |
|
|
19. How much
confidence do you have in the following interest groups with regard to the
handling of bushfires? Circle as appropriate. 1 = Total confidence,
2 = Confidence up to a point, 3 = Concerns, 4 = Little confidence, 5 = No
confidence |
|
The
Federal Government |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
The
State Government |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
The
CFA |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
The
Police |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
The
Upper
Beaconsfield
community |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
20. It would be of
great help to be able to speak to a small group of residents in more
detail regarding these issues, would you be
willing to be interviewed on an individual basis? |
Yes -
please fill out the form below |
|
|
|
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE
ONLY FILL IN THIS SECTION IF YOU HAVE SAID YES IN QUESTION
20.
NAME…………………………………………………………………………………
ADDRESS..……………………………………………………………………………
CONTACTNUMBER………………………………………………………………….
Please note: the
information you have supplied will remain totally
confidential.
I will be collecting your
form on Thursday 14th August Friday
15th August
Once completed please put
the questionnaire in the envelope provided and leave it in either your mailbox
or on your doorstep on the morning of collection.
Question |
Upper
Beaconsfield |
Diamond
Creek |
1.
Sex: |
Female |
109 |
54.8% |
27 |
54% |
Male |
91 |
45.2% |
23 |
46% |
2.
Age: |
18-25 |
8 |
4% |
5 |
10% |
26-40 |
42 |
21% |
15 |
30% |
41-55 |
96 |
48% |
21 |
42% |
56-70 |
41 |
20.5% |
7 |
14% |
71
+ |
13 |
6.5% |
2 |
4% |
3.
How long have you lived in Upper
Beaconsfield /
Diamond Creek? |
Less
than 1 year |
15 |
7.5% |
3 |
6% |
1-5
years |
49 |
24.5% |
7 |
14% |
6-10
years |
28 |
14% |
6 |
12% |
11-15
years |
25 |
12.5% |
6 |
12% |
16-20
years |
26 |
13% |
7 |
14% |
21 +
years |
57 |
28.5% |
21 |
42% |
4.
Do you own your own property? |
Yes |
185 |
92.5% |
43 |
86% |
No |
15 |
7.5% |
7 |
14% |
5.
Did you build your own home? |
Yes |
58 |
30.9% |
14 |
32.6% |
No |
130 |
69.1% |
29 |
67.4% |
6.
To what extent did you consider the fire hazard when constructing and
designing you home? |
Sought
advice |
11 |
17.5% |
1 |
7.1% |
Didn’t
seek advice, but took it into consideration |
34 |
54% |
4 |
28.6% |
Not
really |
11 |
17.5% |
7 |
50% |
Not
at all |
7 |
11.1% |
2 |
14.3% |
7.
What would you consider the hazard rating of the area to
be? |
Very
High |
79 |
39.5% |
10 |
20% |
High |
78 |
39% |
21 |
42% |
Moderate |
42 |
21% |
14 |
28% |
Low |
0 |
0% |
4 |
8% |
Very
Low |
1 |
0.5% |
1 |
2% |
8.
What type of bushfire strategy do you have in
place? |
Wait
and see |
34 |
17% |
13 |
26% |
Evacuation |
62 |
31% |
19 |
38% |
Stay
at home |
53 |
26.5% |
8 |
16% |
Partial
evacuation (some family members stay, others
go) |
51 |
25.5% |
10 |
20% |
9.
Do you feel confident with the strategy you have in
place? |
Yes |
174 |
87% |
37 |
74% |
No |
26 |
13% |
2 |
4% |
Unsure |
N/A |
N/A |
11 |
22% |
10.
How would you rate your knowledge of
bushfires? |
Very
Good |
35 |
17.5% |
13 |
26% |
Good |
91 |
45.5% |
11 |
22% |
Moderate |
68 |
34% |
20 |
40% |
Poor |
6 |
3% |
5 |
10% |
Very
Poor |
0 |
0% |
1 |
2% |
11.
In the event of a bushfire would you expect a CFA tanker and crew to
protect your home? |
Yes |
73 |
36.5% |
29 |
58% |
No |
127 |
63.5% |
21 |
42% |
12.
Are you happy with the level of information about bushfires you
receive? |
Yes |
167 |
83.5% |
37 |
74% |
No |
33 |
16.5% |
13 |
26% |
8.3.
Appendix 3 - Results Summary
Question |
Upper
Beaconsfield |
Diamond
Creek |
13.
How often during the summer do you carry out house and garden maintenance
on your property, for example, ground litter removal and guttering
clearance? |
Never |
0 |
0% |
1 |
2% |
Once
during the summer |
49 |
24.5% |
10 |
20% |
Once
a month |
71 |
35.5% |
20 |
40% |
Once
a fortnight |
47 |
23.5% |
10 |
20% |
Once
a week |
38 |
16.5% |
9 |
18% |
14.
The benefits of living in Upper
Beaconsfield /
Diamond Creek outweigh the risk from
bushfires? |
Agree |
193 |
96.5% |
50 |
100% |
Disagree |
7 |
3.5% |
0 |
0% |
15.
What is the major benefit of living in Upper
Beaconsfield /
Diamond Creek? |
Environmental
benefits |
67 |
34.9% |
18 |
36% |
Cost
of living compared to the city |
7 |
3.6% |
3 |
6% |
Close
to friends and family |
21 |
10.9% |
9 |
18% |
Away
from city risks (pollution, crime etc.) |
57 |
29.7% |
11 |
22% |
Convenience
for work |
7 |
3.6% |
3 |
6% |
Other |
33 |
17.2% |
6 |
12% |
16.
Were you a resident in Upper
Beaconsfield at
the time of the Ash Wednesday fires? |
Yes |
63 |
31.7% |
N/A |
N/A |
No |
136 |
68.3% |
N/A |
N/A |
17.
Did you stay at home or evacuate? |
Stayed
at home |
25 |
40.3% |
N/A |
N/A |
Evacuated |
37 |
59.7% |
N/A |
N/A |
18.
How much better prepared do you feel today than during the Ash Wednesday
fires? |
Much
better prepared |
21 |
35% |
N/A |
N/A |
Better
prepared |
22 |
36.7% |
N/A |
N/A |
The
same |
17 |
28.3% |
N/A |
N/A |
Less
well prepared |
0 |
0% |
N/A |
N/A |
19.
When does fire travel fastest? |
When
it burns upslope |
N/A |
N/A |
31 |
62% |
When
it burns on level ground |
N/A |
N/A |
10 |
20% |
When
it burns downslope |
N/A |
N/A |
9 |
18% |
20.
How much confidence do you have in the following interest groups with
regard to the handling of bushfires? |
|
Average
score (1 = very confident, 5
= not confident) |
The
Federal Government |
3.285 |
2.92 |
The
State Government |
3.15 |
2.98 |
The
CFA |
1.715 |
1.56 |
The
Police |
2.38 |
2.08 |
The
Community |
2.01 |
2.32 |
8.4.
Appendix 4 - Interview Schedule
This is the general
structure and content of the questions asked:
RISK
AWARENESS AND PERCEPTION
1
When did you moved to
Upper
Beaconsfield? Were you living in a fire
prone area before then?
2
Did you receive any
information on your arrival?
3
Was the fire hazard
something that you considered before moving here?
4
So what was the motivation
behind designing your home in this way?
5
In general do you feel that
the community around you does enough to be prepared and
aware?
6
Have you attended any
bushfire meetings such as bushfire blitz?
o How successful? What did it
cover? Was there anything that should have been talked about that
wasn’t?
7
Is community fireguard
active in your area?
o Is it a
success?
8
Is enough being done to get
the message across to the community?
9
How do think the media
deals with the bushfire issues?
10
Tell me about your (family)
routine on a total fire ban day.
11
Tell me about how much of a
risk you see bushfires being in this area:
o To you and your home? To your road? To your
village?
12
How do you see the risk
being best managed in the area? (Is enough being done, e.g. fuel
reduction)
13
Are you confident you will
receive enough warning in order to make a reasoned
decision?
14
In regards to you home /
street, where would you see the major threat from a bushfire
coming?
THE ASH
WEDNESDAY EXPERIENCE
15
What are the major changes
in your awareness since Ash Wednesday?
16
Thinking back are there
things that you would do differently if you had the chance
again?
8.5.
Appendix 5 - Interview Summaries
Interview
1
Awareness
of bushfires:
1
“There’s
always publicity going out but there’s still people who will say that doesn’t
interest me and chuck it out without reading it”
2
“Its too
quick to get away”
3
“I bet you
there will be (another fire). Our block, in terms of plants is just about ready
for another fire”
Awareness
of community schemes:
1
“There’s
one that covers done to, across White
Lane and all
the way along. Along Leppitt
Road and
Carpenter
Road to the
top of the hill there. So everybody who’s been in that group is pretty aware.”
2
“There
were 30 names on the list”
3
“After the
groups got going they (CFA) encouraged us to run them ourselves”
4
“What
Community Fireguard tries to get across is those experiences that you can
share”
Perception
of community:
1
“They
haven’t come to the meetings, but they understand the risks.”
Survival
strategy:
1
“You’ve
got to learn to live with it … making your decisions and making your
preparations knowing that on a decent fire day there’s no way anybody’s going to
stop the fire”
2
“Its just
working around it and if you don’t want to face up to bushfires you go and live
in the city”
3
“Its
really a case of being prepared for all sorts of eventualities, you can’t just
have one fixed strategy in place”
Ash
Wednesday:
1
“There
wasn’t the education”
Changes in
awareness:
2
“I think
we would probably go earlier, knowing what we know
now”
CFA:
3
“The fire
brigade works their fingers to the bone.”
4
“The CFA
nowadays set themselves up so they’re prepared for the fire in three of four
directions … its what’s known as a strike force”
Interview
2
Awareness
of bushfires:
1
“Its only
something you think about in summer”
2
“I’ve
grown up with the risk, so I guess it’s a part of life for
me”
Awareness
of community schemes:
1
“The CFA
give a yearly talk to the UBA (Upper
Beaconsfield
Association). They discuss fire meeting points and that sort of
thing.”
2
“There was
Fireguard scheme a while ago but its fizzled
out”
Perception
of community:
1
“ A lot of
people don’t do enough … but there are those who do discuss the
issues”
Survival
strategy:
2
“ We don’t
have much choice but to evacuate … there are too many trees and access isn’t
great”
3
“”No
matter what you do to prepare, if the person next door doesn’t then it makes no
difference.”
Interview
3
Awareness
of community schemes:
1
“Bushfire
Blitz is a one and half hour talk that covers the basics about fire
behaviour”
2
“Its down
to the willingness of individual streets for Community Fireguard to take
off”
3
“Individuals
are left to run them but the CFA do provide
support”
Perception
of community:
1
“You have
to remember that people lead busy lives, single parents, or both parents working
… bushfires even in high risk areas are unlikely. So people prioritise
elsewhere. For instance is it better to have a fire pump or spend the money on
school fees?
2
“Its hard
to get people to prioritise fires”
Interview
4
Awareness
of bushfires:
1
“You don’t
have to be a genius to fight fire as long as you are with people who know what
they’re doing”
2
“I grew up
on a farm, fires were part of the reality of every
summer. They were very rarely serious. That (AW) was a rare event. I see no
reason to move.”
3
“The
possibility of a bushfire is part of the price. But in a place like here where
the scrub is not dense and is rarely that dry even the risk itself is no that
great if you carry out some basic preparations.”
Awareness
of community schemes:
1
Referring
to Community Fireguard and Bushfire Blitz: “I have to say I had not heard of
either them until you mentioned them”
2
“Involvement
not in a wide community sense. Among the neighbours here”
Perception
of community:
1
“I hadn’t
expected my community to respond in such a disorganised
way”
Survival
strategy:
2
“In the
next fire I will defend this place until it is safe and then deploy myself
somewhere else.”
Ash
Wednesday:
3
“I was
ordered to evacuate twice by a policeman who had no idea where I was to evacuate
to and on one occasion by a policeman who had no idea where
Upper
Beaconsfield was”
4
“In
military terms, they didn’t use the available intelligence. They knew the big
winds were coming, they knew that gully was deep, and they should have known it
would be very difficult for a crew who didn’t know the road”
5
“I said to
a fireman where do you want the volunteers … He just said I wish all you
volunteers would get out of the place. I’m not accusing him of anything other
than incompetence and only of the incompetence you would expect from almost
anyone and that’s an important distinction”
6
“You could
here it coming; you couldn’t see anything until it was on top of you like a fast
running train.”
7
“There
were all sorts of people who took advantage of welfare availability. Other
people who carried out various insurance frauds.”
8
“The chain
of command up here got very confused … We just got attacked in so many places at
once, the system had to collapse.”
Concerns:
1
“Think
it’s (CFA) a politics ridden body. I still think that
in fairness to them a fire of that magnitude is never going to be well handled
by small groups of volunteers”
Changes in
awareness:
2
“Policy
now has moved a lot more towards staying and defending your house”
Areas for
improvement:
3
“If more
people really had a fire fighting pump and a source of water, um, (a) we could
stop some fires before they got big and (b) we could defend properties far more
readily.”
4
“We don’t
make enough use of our military forces.”
Interview
5
Perception
of community:
1
“There
would only be a couple of people I know who would be geared up for it”
2
“The
majority as far as I can see rely on the CFA”
3
“The rest
of the people I know up and down the road wouldn’t have a clue. My perception is
that they wouldn’t have much of an idea, I might be wrong”
4
“Its all
very well to be community orientated but when the bushfires came through here
the people over the road were very helpful”
5
“Some
people are never going to be all that interested in it; they just think it will
never happen”
6
“The other
neighbours who are new to the area, I spoke to them and asked what they were
doing and they said they hadn’t thought about it”
Survival
strategy:
1
“Its every
man for himself”
Ash
Wednesday:
2
“That was
the most devastating fire I’ve ever seen”
3
“You
wouldn’t expect a devastating fire like that to go through more than once in a
lifetime”
4
“No matter
how much planning you do its just, you wouldn’t have stopped it with anything”
5
“The bush
comes back, but the dwellings are what people lose“
Concerns:
1
“Probably
my only concern would be, the water supply”
2
“With that
in mind its up to the individual to have their own supply of water”
3
“Something
I had never experienced before, and that was the last fire I was involved with,
and that was a fireball came through … when that had past, the rest of the fire
was something you could do something about”
4
“You could
here the roar three or four kilometres away”
Benefits
of living in Upper
Beaconsfield:
1
“Works
good, it’s a good spot to live, nice people live around the
area.”
Interview
6
Awareness
of bushfires:
2
“People
have just got to be aware … they sit here and watch the TV coverage of the
Canberra fires and
say ah gees that’s terrible, but it’ll never happen
here”.
3
“You have
to be prepared and you know, if it’s going to be too much for you, you’ve got to
evacuate”
Awareness
of community schemes:
1
“Look I
don’t know if there’s been any up here. I can’t recall of any meetings up
here”
Perception
of community:
2
“I don’t
think they are prepared or aware”
3
“I’m
disappointed in a community that’s gone through a tragedy”
4
“I think
its just people having the attitude it will never happen again, it will happen”
5
“I just
think as a community, I don’t think they are prepared any more than they were in
1983.”
6
“They just
say are look we’ll just drive off. But it’s probably not as easy as that ‘cause
you have traffic management”
Survival
strategy:
1
“There’ll
always be people who won’t go. That’s a decision you have to
make”
Ash
Wednesday:
2
“Some
went, yet they still died. So there’s no real answer”
3
“Disasters
of that magnitude - I don’t know if anybody could be prepared. The only
preparation you can have for a disaster like that is
evacuation.”
Concerns:
1
“Over the
last four or five years watching things grow, you know where trees should be
cleared or there should be clearance”
2
“Look at
all the houses going up now. People may think that because there’s more houses
going up, they start to think a bushfire can’t come here”
3
“There’s
no clearance down in Critchley
Park. It’s
basically how it was back in 1983 … people don’t realise that the trees that
went through the bushfires and grew back are now more shallow rooted. So in
actual fact they have more intensity to fall and stuff like that, so there are
other dangers involved.”
Changes in
awareness:
1
“Clearance
of your property and having an evacuation plan”
2
“There
ought to be somebody with local knowledge who can be brought to bear on these
issues”
Auto-Critique
The extensive
literature on environmental risk perception offered a wide scope for exploring
the reasons behind people living in areas prone to extreme natural hazards. I chose to examine bushfires for a
number of reasons. Firstly, it was an extremely topical issue at the time. Fires
had been causing widespread damage in several parts of
Australia between January
and March 2003. Therefore, there appeared be a need to understand what the risks
were and how they could be managed. Secondly, when I began to explore the
possibilities there appeared to a real need to add to the literature on
bushfires. Outside of Australia little has been
written on the topic despite the fact that areas of Southern
Europe and the
United
States are extremely vulnerable.
Even within the literature in Australia the need for
more investigations into all aspects of fires, including the social aspects, was
evident. The decision to investigate this topic in Upper
Beaconsfield was due to my own
knowledge of the area. I had contacts in place to help facilitate this
undertaking and I was also confident that the research was feasible.
The approach I
adopted enabled a large amount of nominal data to be collected in
Upper
Beaconsfield. Ideally the views of all
residents would have been obtained but this was not possible due to the
restraints of time and resources. Nonetheless, 200 responses represented a good
cross-section of the community and as such added validity to the research.
Whilst the same robustness was not achieved from Diamond Creek, the 50 residents
surveyed made a worthwhile comparison that added a further dimension to the
research. The downside of using a quantitative methodology when examining social
perceptions is that it can pigeon-hole responses to a
degree. This is why the in-depth interviews with 6 respondents were useful. They
enabled the issues to be discussed in greater depth and put the quantitative
findings into context. Thus, the two contrasting methodologies complemented each
other to further the overall understanding of the issues.
With hindsight
there are a few adjustments to the research that could have been made. In the
questionnaire for Upper
Beaconsfield a couple of questions to
test knowledge of fire behaviour would have been useful to determine how
educated the respondents were on these matters. This was to some extent
rectified for the Diamond Creek survey. In addition, the lower age range (under
25’s) was under-represented in the research sample. Consequently, in a future
study it would be worthwhile to focus more on them. They are, after all, the
people who will be involved in the formulation of bushfire management in the
years to come. Nonetheless, overall this research has served to highlight some
important areas for improving people’s bushfire awareness in
Upper
Beaconsfield, whilst providing a useful
comparison with past research in this field. It has also uncovered the need for
a more wide-ranging investigation in Diamond Creek to determine the full extent
of people’s perceptions of these important issues.
Bibliography
Adams, J. (1995)
Risk. London: UCL
Press.
Aplin, G. (2002)
Australians and their environment: an introduction to environmental
studies, Oxford:
Oxford University
Press.
Baxter, J.
(1984) Who Burned Australia? The Ash
Wednesday Fires, Kent: New English
Library.
Beringer, J. (2000)
Community Fire Safety At The Rural/Urban Interface:
The Bushfire Risk. Fire Safety Journal, 35, pp. 1-23.
Boura, J. (1998)
Community Fireguard: Creating Partnerships With The
Community To Minimise The Impact Of Bushfires. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, 13, pp. 59-64.
Brown, J. and
Damery, S. (2002) ‘Managing flood risk in the
UK: towards an
integration of social and technical perspectives’. TIBG, 27, pp.
412-426.
Bryant, E. (1990)
Natural hazards.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press,
pp. 157-170.
Burton,
I., Kates, R. and White, G. (1993) The Environment As Hazard,
London:
Guildford Press. Chapters
2,4-5.
Byron,
I. And Curtis, A. (2001)
Landcare in
Australia: burned out and
browned off. Local Environment, 6.3,
311-326
CFA (2002) Community
Bushfire Preparedness: Executive Summary. Victoria:
CFA.
Chapman, D. (1999)
Natural Hazards.
Melbourne:
Oxford
University Press. Chapters
1-2 and 7-8.
Cheney, N.
(1995) Bushfires: An Integral Part Of Australia’s
Environment. http.//www.abs.gov.au/Austats/abs@.nsf…75496a5ad1ca2569de00267e48!OpenDocument.
05/02/2003.
Clark, C. (1991)
Environmental Hazards. Surry:
Nelson
Department of
Infrastructure (2000) Suburbs In Time.
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/research.nsf/0/42da1270c1c7a8d9ca256cc600044216?opendocument.
21/01/04.
Edgell, M. (1973)
Nature and Perception of the Bushfire Hazard In South
Eastern
Australia.
Victoria:
Monash
University Publications in
Geography.
Flowerdew, R. and Martin,
D. (1997) Methods In Human Geography.
Harlow: Prentice
Hall.
Handmer, J. and
Penning-Roswell, E. (eds.) (1990) Hazards And The
Communication Of Risk. Aldershot: Gower
Technical.
House of
Representatives Select Committee On The Recent Australian Bushfires (2003) A
Nation Charred.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/bushfires/inquiry/report.htm.
24/11/03.
House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation (1984) Bushfires and the
Australian Environment, Canberra: AGPS.
Incoll, R. (2003)
An Overview of Fire Hazard and Vegetation Controls in the Shire of
Nillumbik (unpublished).
Johnston, R., Gregory,
D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (eds.)
(2000) The Dictionary of Human Geography.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp.
229-300.
Keys, C. (1991)
‘Community analysis: Some considerations for disaster preparedness
response’. Mount
Macedon,
Australian
Counter
Disaster
College.
Krusel, N. and Petris, S. (1992) Staying Alive: Lessons Learnt From
A Study Of Civilian Deaths In The 1983 Ash Wednesday
Bushfires. Fire Management Quarterly, 2, pp. 1-20.
Lazarus, G. and
Elley, J. (1984) A Study of the Effect Household
Occupancy During the Ash Wednesday Bushfire in
Upper
Beaconsfield,
Victoria, February
1983. Paper No. 3, The National Centre for Rural Fire Research,
Victoria: Technical.
Löfstedt, R. And Frewer, L. (eds) (1998) The Earthscan
Reader in Risk and Modern Society, London: Earthscan Publications.
Luke, R. and McArthur, A.
(1978) Bushfires in Australia,
Canberra:
AGPS.
McKnight, T.L.
(1995) Oceania: The Geography
Of Australia,
New
Zealand, And The
Pacific
Islands.
Sydney: Prentice
Hall.
Melways (2003)
Australia
Map.
http://www.street-directory.com.au/aus_new/index.cgi. 02/11/03.
Miller, S.I.,
Carter, W. And Stephens, R.G. (1984) Report on the Bushfire Review Committee
on Bushfire Preparedness in Victoria,
Australia, following the
Ash Wednesday Fires 16 February
1983,
Melbourne: Government
Printer.
Miller et al. (1984)
Report On Bushfire Disaster Preparedness, pp.
150-174.
Murray, R. and White,
K. (1995) State of Fire: A History of
Volunteer Firefighting and the Country Fire Authority
in Victoria.
Victoria: Hargreen Publishing.
Niall, E.,
Rhodes, A. and Russell, S. (2003) Community Safety Post Incident Analysis:
North East
Victoria and Gippsland Fires 2003.
Victoria:
CFA.
O'Connor, Kevin
(2001) Australia's changing
economic geography: a society dividing.
Melbourne:
Oxford
University
Press.
Packham, D. (1992)
Bushfires In Australia: What Is The
Risk? Australian Planner, 30.1,
pp. 8-12.
Packham, D. (2003)
Bushfire Threat to Nillumbik Shire (unpublished).
Pakenham-Berwick Gazette
(2003) Ash Wednesday: 20 Years On. Victoria.
Pyne, S. (1991)
Burning bush - A fire history of
Australia,
New
York: Henry
Holt.
Reinholtd, S., Rhodes, A.
and Scillio, M. (1999a) Stay or Go? Understanding Community Response to Emergencies.
Victoria:
CFA.
Reinholtd, S.,
Rhodes, A. and Scillio, M. (1999b) Preparedness.
Victoria:
CFA
Robinson, Guy
M., Loughran, Robert J., Tranter, Paul J. (2000):
Australia and
New
Zealand: economy, society and
environment,
London:
Arnold.
Rogers, A.,
Viles, H. and Goudie, A.
(eds) (1999) The Student’s
Companion to Geography, Blackwell: Oxford
Smith, D. (1999)
Saving A Continent, Sydney:
University of
New South
Wales Press, pp.
102-104.
Smith, K. (2001)
Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk And Reducing
Disaster. London: Routledge.
The Age and
The Adelaide Advertiser
(1983) Ash Wednesday. Clayton: Wilke and
Company Ltd.
Young, Ann R. M.
(2000) Environmental change in
Australia since
1788, Melbourne: Oxford
University Press, pp. 85-88 and pp. 154-156.
Webster, J. (1986) The Complete Australian Bushfire Book.
Melbourne:
Nelson.
Williams, B.,
Brown, S., Greenberg, M. and Kahn, M. (1999) ‘Risk Perception in Context: The
Savannah
River Site Stakeholder Study’.
Society for Risk Analysis, 200, pp. 1019-1035.
Wilson, A. and
Ferguson,
I. (1984)
‘Fight or flee? A case study of the
Mount
Macedon bushfire’. Australian
Forestry, 47, pp. 230-236.