‘Any prediction is better than none’? A study of the perceptions of fire behaviour analysis users in Australia
Timothy Neale
A D , Matteo Vergani A , Chloe Begg B , Musa Kilinc B , Mike Wouters C and Sarah Harris B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
B Country Fire Authority, Burwood East, Vic. 3151, Australia.
C Department of Environment and Water, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: t.neale@deakin.edu.au
International Journal of Wildland Fire 30(12) 946-953 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF21100
Submitted: 13 July 2021 Accepted: 7 October 2021 Published: 1 November 2021
Journal Compilation © IAWF 2021 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Internationally, fire and land management agencies are increasingly using forms of predictive services to inform wildfire planning and operational response. This trend is particularly pronounced in Australia where, over the past two decades, there has been an alignment between increases in investments in fire behaviour analysis tools, the training and development of fire behaviour analysts (FBANs), and official inquiries recommending the expanded use of these tools and analysts. However, while there is a relative lack of scholarship on the utilisation of predictive services, existing research suggests that institutional investment and availability are poor indicators of use in contexts with established social dynamics of trust and authority. To better understand the utilisation of predictive services in Australia, we undertook a survey of key predictive services users (e.g. incident controllers, planning officers) in order to test several hypotheses developed from existing studies and ethnographic fieldwork. Our results provide directions for further research and indicate that, rather than simply invest in tools and systems, there is a need for fire management agencies to foster personal connection between predictive services practitioners, their tools and their users.
Keywords: fire management, decision making, predictive services, risk communication, fire management modelling, planning, Australia.
References
Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP, Barbero R (2019) Global emergence of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices. Geophysical Research Letters 46, 326–336.| Global emergence of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
AFAC (2020) Male Champions of Change: Fire and Emergency Impact Report 2019. Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council. (East Melbourne, Vic.)
AIDR (2019) ‘Australian emergency management arrangements handbook’. (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience: East Melbourne, Vic.)
Anonymous (2021) New bushfire prediction technology aims to help frontline emergency teams. ABC News, 5 February.
Bhandari RB, Owen C, Trist C (2015) Incident Management Approaches above the Incident Management Team Level in Australia. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 12, 101–119.
| Incident Management Approaches above the Incident Management Team Level in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Calkin DE, Venn T, Wibbenmeyer M, et al. (2013) Estimating US federal wildland fire managers’ preferences toward competing strategic suppression objectives. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 212–222.
| Estimating US federal wildland fire managers’ preferences toward competing strategic suppression objectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Calkin DE, Cohen JD, Finney MA, et al. (2014) How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 746–751.
| How risk management can prevent future wildfire disasters in the wildland-urban interface.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24344292PubMed |
Collier SJ, Lakoff A (2015) Vital systems security: Reflexive biopolitics and the government of emergency. Theory, Culture & Society 32, 19–51.
| Vital systems security: Reflexive biopolitics and the government of emergency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cope M (2005) Coding qualitative data. In ‘Qualitative research methods in human geography. 2nd ed’. (Ed. I Hay) pp. 223–233. (Oxford University Press: London)
Cruz MG, Sullivan AL, Leonard R, et al. (2014) ‘Fire behaviour knowledge in Australia: a synthesis of disciplinary and stakeholder knowledge on fire spread prediction capability and application’. (CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences and CSIRO Digital Productivity and Services Flagship: Canberra, ACT)
Demeritt D, Nobert S, Cloke HL, et al. (2013) The European Flood Alert System and the communication, perception, and use of ensemble predictions for operational flood risk management. Hydrological Processes 27, 147–157.
| The European Flood Alert System and the communication, perception, and use of ensemble predictions for operational flood risk management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Finney MA (2005) The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 97–108.
| The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Flin R, Arbuthnot K (2017) ‘Incident command: Tales from the hot seat’. (Routledge: Oxfordshire)
Gibos K, Slijepcevic A, Wells T, et al. (2015) Building fire behavior analyst (FBAN) capability and capacity: lessons learned from Victoria, Australia’s bushfire behavior predictive services strategy. In ‘Proceedings of the large wildland fires conference’, 19–23 May 2014, Missoula, MT. (Eds RE Keane, M Jolly, R Parsons, K Riley) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp. 91–103. (Fort Collins, CO, USA)
Godin B (2006) The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values 31, 639–667.
| The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayes PA, Omodei MM (2011) Managing emergencies: Key competencies for incident management teams. The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology 4, 1–10.
| Managing emergencies: Key competencies for incident management teams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lawson C, Eburn M, Dovers S, et al. (2017) ‘Major post-event inquiries and reviews: Review of recommendations’. (Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC: East Melbourne, Vic.)
McLennan J, Holgate AM, Omodei MM, et al. (2006) Decision making effectiveness in wildfire incident management teams. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 14, 27–37.
| Decision making effectiveness in wildfire incident management teams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mell WE, Manzello SL, Maranghides A, et al. (2010) The wildland–urban interface fire problem: current approaches and research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 238–251.
| The wildland–urban interface fire problem: current approaches and research needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morss RE, Wilhelmi OV, Downton MW, et al. (2005) Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: lessons from an interdisciplinary project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86, 1593–1602.
| Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: lessons from an interdisciplinary project.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neale T, May D (2018) Bushfire simulators and analysis in Australia: insights into an emerging sociotechnical practice. Environmental Hazards 17, 200–218.
| Bushfire simulators and analysis in Australia: insights into an emerging sociotechnical practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neale T, May D (2020) Fuzzy boundaries: expertise and culture in bushfire prediction. Social Studies of Science 50, 837–859.
| Fuzzy boundaries: expertise and culture in bushfire prediction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32053028PubMed |
Noble P, Paveglio TB (2020) Exploring Adoption of the Wildland Fire Decision Support System: End User Perspectives. Journal of Forestry 118, 154–171.
| Exploring Adoption of the Wildland Fire Decision Support System: End User Perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nyquist JR (2019) ‘Fire and the creation of landscape regimes: Wildness and interconnections in West Australian forests’. (University of California: Santa Cruz, CA)
Owen G, McLeod JD, Kolden CA, et al. (2012) Wildfire management and forecasting fire potential: the roles of climate information and social networks in the southwest United States. Weather, Climate, and Society 4, 90–102.
| Wildfire management and forecasting fire potential: the roles of climate information and social networks in the southwest United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Owens D, O’Kane M (2020) New South Wales Independent Bushfire Inquiry (Department of Premier and Cabinet: Sydney, NSW)
Pacheco AP, Claro J, Fernandes PM, et al. (2015) Cohesive fire management within an uncertain environment: a review of risk handling and decision support systems. Forest Ecology and Management 347, 1–17.
| Cohesive fire management within an uncertain environment: a review of risk handling and decision support systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pahl-Wostl C, Becker G, Knieper C, et al. (2013) How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society 18, 58
| How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a comparative case study analysis on flood management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plucinski MP, Sullivan AL, Rucinski CJ, et al. (2017) Improving the reliability and utility of operational bushfire behaviour predictions in Australian vegetation. Environmental Modelling & Software 91, 1–12.
| Improving the reliability and utility of operational bushfire behaviour predictions in Australian vegetation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quarantelli EL (2000) ‘Disaster planning, emergency management and civil protection: the historical development of organized efforts to plan for and to respond to disasters’. (University of Delaware Disaster Research Center)
Rapp C, Rabung E, Wilson R, et al. (2020) Wildfire decision support tools: an exploratory study of use in the United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 29, 581–594.
| Wildfire decision support tools: an exploratory study of use in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
RCNNDA (2020) Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements: Final Report. (Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT)
SAIR (2020) Independent review into South Australia’s 2019–20 bushfire season. Government of South Australia. (Adelaide, SA)
Thompson MP (2014) Social, institutional, and psychological factors affecting wildfire incident decision making. Society & Natural Resources 27, 636–644.
| Social, institutional, and psychological factors affecting wildfire incident decision making.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Finney MA, et al. (2011) Integrated national-scale assessment of wildfire risk to human and ecological values. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 25, 761–780.
| Integrated national-scale assessment of wildfire risk to human and ecological values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whittaker J, Haynes K, Wilkinson C, et al. (2021) ‘Black Summer: how the NSW community responded to the 2019–20 bushfire season’. (Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC: East Melbourne, Vic.)
Wibbenmeyer MJ, Hand MS, Calkin DE, et al. (2013) Risk preferences in strategic wildfire decision making: a choice experiment with US wildfire managers. Risk Analysis 33, 1021–1037.
| Risk preferences in strategic wildfire decision making: a choice experiment with US wildfire managers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23078036PubMed |
