@article {bnh-8278, title = {Encouraging evacuation: the role of behavioural message inputs in bushfire warnings}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, abstract = {

In catastrophic bushfires or wildfires, warnings are issued by emergency service organisations to inform communities about the hazard and provide guidance about protective actions. Long-form warnings are complemented by shorter social media warnings that preference content about hazard severity. Warnings that do not include clear behavioural guidance can challenge clarity and community uptake. However, there has been little research that examines and compares existing warnings with those constructed to encourage behavioural intentions. In this study, we follow the Protective Action Decision Model and first identify cues that predict evacuation intentions. Next, we compare existing long-form and social media warnings with those modified to include behavioural advice and instruction to examine their effect on clarity and ease of action and protective action intentions. Findings show how the inclusion of behavioural inputs into social media warnings enhances protective action intentions, offering evidence to specifically support changes to existing practice.

}, keywords = {Behavioural inputs, bushfires, Evacuation, warning}, issn = {2212-4209}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102673}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420921006348}, author = {Amisha Mehta and Scott Murray and Ryan McAndrew and Michaela Jackson and Vivienne Tippett} } @article {bnh-6723, title = {Why don{\textquoteright}t bushfire warnings work as intended? Responses to official warnings during bushfires in New South Wales, Australia}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {45}, year = {2020}, abstract = {

Australian fire services provide two broad types of warning to people in bushfire (or wildfire) risk areas. Fire Danger Ratings communicate the possible consequences of a bushfire due to its rate of spread, intensity and difficulty of suppression. Warnings are also issued to alert people to impending bushfires and advise them how to respond. This paper examines how people threatened and affected by bushfires in New South Wales, Australia, in 2017 understood, interpreted and acted upon warning messages they received. The research involved 113 semi-structured interviews and an online survey of 549 households. Results indicate that while most people found warnings easy to understand and useful, many did not respond in ways intended by fire services. Many waited until they were threatened before they evacuated, while others stayed to defend houses and property, assist or rescue other people, and protect pets and animals. Notably, the research highlights the tendency for people to seek confirmation of the bushfire threat before taking protective action, most commonly to avoid unnecessary evacuation and its associated costs. Furthermore, the research identifies three key messages in bushfire warnings that are not personally meaningful for many people because they do not align with how they are likely to respond to a bushfire. These include: (1) people should leave bushfire risk areas on days of Catastrophic fire danger, before there is a fire; (2) houses are not defendable under Catastrophic conditions; and (3) people should {\textquoteleft}leave early{\textquoteright}. The paper offers suggestions on how fire authorities can provide better information to help people to make more effective decisions by acknowledging and working within the context in which warnings are understood, interpreted and acted upon.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, defence, Evacuation, information, preparation, Warnings, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101476}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919304625?dgcid=author}, author = {J Whittaker and Mel Taylor and Christopher Bearman} } @article {bnh-4686, title = {Motivations and experiences of sheltering in place during floods: Implications for policy and practice}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {31}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, pages = {7}, chapter = {781}, abstract = {

Whilst much research considers evacuation behaviours during floods and other natural hazard events, and how to motivate greater compliance to evacuation orders, there is little research documenting peoples{\textquoteright} reasons for, and experiences of, sheltering at their home or business during floods. Focusing on the experiences of residents and business owners who sheltered during a major flood event, this study explores the motivations for staying during floods, residents{\textquoteright} practices while sheltering, and the attendant challenges and impacts. Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire were conducted with residents and business owners in the Richmond, Brunswick and Tweed river catchments in New South Wales in the months following an extensive flood event in 2017. The research identified a culture of sheltering during floods in these communities that is passed down through families and communities. Nuanced personal and locally specific factors influenced decisions to shelter, and official warnings and evacuation orders were often considered inaccurate or too late, or disregarded due to {\textquoteleft}warning fatigue{\textquoteright}. Findings also reveal that sheltering can be physically and psychologically challenging, and often involves actively defending people, property, and possessions from floodwaters. This study highlights the critical importance of context to understanding sheltering decisions, and consequently, the need for nuance in emergency management responses and risk communication. It also shows the importance of understanding what sheltering involves and its impacts, particularly given increasing pressure to urbanise and develop flood plains.

}, keywords = {beaviour, communities, emergency management., Evacuation, Floods, response, risk communication}, doi = {10.1016}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918304345}, author = {Katharine Haynes and Matalena Tofa and Ashley Avci and Jonathan Van Leeuwen and Coates, Lucinda} } @article {bnh-5064, title = {Should we leave now? Behavioral factors in evacuation under wildfire threat}, journal = {Fire Technology}, year = {2018}, month = {07/2018}, pages = {30}, chapter = {1}, abstract = {

Wildfires pose a serious threat to life in many countries. For police, fire and emergency services authorities in most jurisdictions in North America and Australia evacuation is now the option that is preferred overwhelmingly. Wildfire evacuation modeling can assist authorities in planning evacuation responses to future threats. Understanding residents{\textquoteright} behavior under wildfire threat may assist in wildfire evacuation modeling. This paper reviews North American and Australian research into wildfire evacuation behavior published between January 2005 and June 2017. Wildfire evacuation policies differ across the two regions: in North America mandatory evacuations are favored, in Australia most are advisory. Research from both regions indicates that following a wildfire evacuation warning some threatened residents will wish to remain on their property in order to protect it, many will delay evacuating, and some residents who are not on their property when an evacuation warning is issued may seek to return. Mandatory evacuation is likely to result in greater compliance, enforcement policies are also likely to be influential. Self-delayed evacuation is likely if warnings are not sufficiently informative: residents are likely to engage in information search rather than initiating evacuation actions. The wildfire warning and threat histories of a location may influence residents{\textquoteright} decisions and actions. The complexities of behavioral factors influencing residents{\textquoteright} actions following an evacuation warning pose challenges for wildfire evacuation modeling. Suggestions are offered for ways in which authorities might reduce the numbers of residents who delay evacuating following a wildfire warning.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, delay, Evacuation, human behavior, modeling, Wildfire}, doi = {10.1007/s10694-018-0753-8 }, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-018-0753-8}, author = {Jim McLennan and Barbara Ryan and Christopher Bearman and Keith Toh} } @article {BF-4277, title = {Householders{\textquoteright} safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires}, journal = {Fire Safety Journal}, volume = {61}, year = {2013}, month = {10/2013}, pages = {175-184}, chapter = {175}, abstract = {This study examined decisions made by householders under wildfire threat. Data were obtained from interviews with survivors of severe wildfires in Victoria (Australia) on 7 February 2009 which killed 172 civilians and destroyed more than 2000 homes. Prior to this, Australian fire agency community wildfire safety policy was that residents should: {\textquoteleft}Prepare, stay and defend or leave early{\textquoteright}. Most of the 223 interviewees who stayed and defended did so because this was their wildfire safety plan, and they believed that they would be successful despite the predicted extreme fire danger weather. In 79\% of cases, defence was successful; for the remaining 21\% the house was destroyed and several lives were imperilled. Of the 216 who left for a safer location only 39\% said that this was their wildfire safety plan; for most, the action of leaving was triggered by realisation of the imminent threat posed by the fire; 36\% self-evacuated under hazardous conditions. The findings suggest that community wildfire safety programs should emphasize: (a) the risks associated with staying to defend a property; and (b) how householders should prepare in order to leave safely if a fire threatens.}, keywords = {Community wildfire safety, Decision making, Evacuation, Property defence, Risk perception, Wildfire survival}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.09.003}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037971121300146X}, author = {Jim McLennan and Elliott, Glenn and Omodei, Mary and J Whittaker} }