Science

Decoding Code Red

Associate Professor Robert Heath, University of South Australia

14 October 2009

Associate Professor Robert Heath is a crisis management expert at the University of South Australia. Here he comments on the announcement by the Victorian Government that they have scrapped the stay or go policy in favour of evacuation on ‘code red’ days where catastrophic fires are likely.

On some levels the Victorian Government changes to urge/direct evacuation as the only choice under Code Red (Catastrophic fire) may lead to more loss of property and life than would superficially appear.

Given an evaluation that covers the entire state of Victoria, to where do ALL Victorians evacuate?

Given that evacuation is recommended the night before a Catastrophic Fire condition, how can a respondent respond with no actual fire?

The one obvious level on which this change may work is where a fire on ground already exists (which has been the case) and extreme conditions indicate a megafire or catastrophe the next day.

A number of scenarios are apparently not considered.

The first is that despite such warnings, respondents wait virtually until they see the fire before evacuating – waiting to see whether conditions change. This is why we tend always to have a number of fatalities found within motor vehicles in major fire events. Cognitively I see the change thus having minimal impact, although the recency of the 2009 fires may prompt earlier and more evacuation responses than “normal” (until 3 or more years pass without an extreme event).

Duty of care problems will still remain. What happens where in the process of following the evacuation directive/recommendation on a forecast (next day) event, life or property is damaged or lost? Under the same circumstances, what happens when people are evacuated into a subsequent fire danger with damage/loss of life/property? What happens when the event by classification becomes not catastrophic but people evacuate on the conditional warning and subsequently lose property that may have been arguably protected/saved by their presence at the site being evacuated (not only from fire but any storm or theft)? Who will compensate for loss of business should the catastrophe fail to eventuate?

Whether compulsory in nature or not, agency/government directions to do a given act carry responsibility for outcomes.

People will continue to die in catastrophic fires. We need to ensure that a reduction in the number that may so die is not simply a dispersion of death process -- wherein fewer die from direct catastrophic fire sources while increasing the number that may die from other sources (vehicle accidents, for example).

Ultimately, real risk of loss due to catastrophic fire management needs four conditions to be met:

1/ Acceptance by those with higher exposure to catastrophic bushfire/wildfire risk that they are highly exposed and are thus likely to lose property and possibly life in remaining in such exposure.

2/ Enforcement of appropriate insurance such that those who are underinsured understand they will lose the value of property loss (rather than hope that a generous government and even more generous public will cover the cost of such lifestyles of the grossly underinsured or non-insured.

3/ Appropriate and parallel legislation that- as fairly as possible demarks safety for people (and property) and for the environment and nature. This demarcation may indicate, for example, levels of countermeasures that can be clearly understood – from nature only (no protection) through to full protection with large no-growth and clearance zones required.

4/ Use of a clear rule of thumb – evacuate if people are old, incapacitated, young, unprepared, feeling incapable of protecting self, others, property and doing so on early warnings with even moderate fires. Structures are easier to replace than people.

There are examples even in catastrophic fires of staying and reducing the consequent losses, of staying and surviving, and of the reverse of losing property and life. The 2009 Victorian bushfire was no different. What we need to clearly comprehend is that staying to fight requires more capability than most sites and people have (and often a deal of luck). Without having experienced the physical and all-senses assault of a moderate or worse fire, however, most people cannot really comprehend the states of thought and consequent actions they may have until, in some cases, too late.

-------------

If you are a scientist and wish to contribute to this Science Blog, please contact the AusSMC.
Comments received are moderated by the AusSMC and placement cannot be guaranteed.

The opinions expressed in this Science Blog are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Science Media Centre.