@article {bnh-8116, title = {Indigenous fire and land management - impact and sustainability}, number = {680}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Context

Significant work has been done over the life of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre around the issues, opportunities and challenges facing remote Indigenous communities in the face of natural hazards. In the north of Australia, the predominant natural threats are cyclones, wildfire and flood, though the level of threat and impact of any of these differs considerably from region to region. There are other hazards that deeply concern remote community leaders, again, not equally across regions: heat stress and exposure, natural water resource salination and pollution, food security, toxicity and asthma issues from crude community waste burning, infrastructure issues (including road access); and related challenges; local capability to act, governance, resilience, inclusion etc.

The emergency management sector research has focused on technologies, capability, recruitment, and other aspects of EM agency preparation, response and recovery. This project responds to an identified gap in addressing the overall environment of Emergency management in remote areas. . . working together!

It is broadly recognised within Indigenous communities that EM is carried out FOR them, not WITH them. (See detailed discussion of this in the Arnhem Land context in Maypalama et. al.: 2016 and Sithole et. al.: 2021). This has generated increased interest, not only in the future engagement of communities in EM, but in the roles, if any, of EM and other agencies in the resilience of communities who, given structural and resource limitations in EM, are keen (and encouraged) to increase {\textquoteleft}self-reliance{\textquoteright} and take on more responsibilities in this space.

There is now a growing conversation nationally around government agencies and Indigenous communities collaborating more effectively. Much of this conversation has been around the perceived positive impact of traditional knowledge (particularly use of fire) on landscape health, and vulnerability to wildfire, how this may be integrated into rural fire service practice and what the real impact of this might be.

Indigenous leaders and rangers have consistently said and shown that use of fire is not separate from other (holistic) elements of caring for traditional country and that the social and cultural dimensions to land and fire management need to be acknowledged and respected to deliver the desired benefits to country and people (Sithole et. al. 2021: Maypalama et.al. 2019: James et. al. 2019: Burgess et. al. 2009). There are many aspects to this conversation and many perceived potential benefits of working together. They underpin this project{\textquoteright}s focus on partnerships to be able to explore this work together. Thus, the research brief is to:

Method

This research was conducted as a series of community-based discussions and workshops in the Northern Territory and north Queensland. NAILSMA provided resources, logistics, backgrounding and other support to local Indigenous researchers and facilitators who ran the meetings on country. This was a Participatory Action Research (PAR) method, consistent with preceding research on community resilience and partnerships by ARPNet and NAILSMA under the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project Developing effective partnerships in remote north Australian communities: Indigenous research and leadership in Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku. Inherent in this approach are direct benefits to Indigenous researchers and their communities from the process and from longer term outcomes influenced by their research and advocacy with EM agency leaders.

\ Where possible, meeting notes from the NT and Qld discussions were drafted and circulated to respondents and all invitees to the final combined workshop. This was to share what had already been discussed and to help provide focus.

An Agency Reference Group (ARG) (made up predominantly of representatives from QFES, NTES and DFES, but including CDU, Red Cross, NAILSMA and BFNT people) was invited to review and respond to early workshop outcomes, and attend the final workshop. This step was to inform the ARG and Indigenous community invitees to the final workshop with a general view of both Indigenous and agency perspectives on EM priorities and partnership prospects. They were able to kick-off their face-to-face discussions with a degree of prior understanding and focus.

This final, combined workshop was hosted by Djabugay people on their land, facilitated by Barry Hunter, a Djabugay leader and consultant and supported by NAILSMA.

Findings

To inform a Future Research Strategy the research team has organised ideas from the workshop and broader project into:

The work found that gaps are evident within communities, within EM agencies and between them. Summary of the findings includes:

Research Priorities mirror the above gaps and challenges, leading to achieving practical steps in long-term relationship pathways:

Integrating Indigenous fire and land management knowledge with EM operations and systems is not about taking the knowledge, it{\textquoteright}s about building respectful and trusting relationships with Indigenous people to deliver more effective EM together.

Utilisation

This research method (Participatory Action Research) assumes that the Indigenous researchers and their communities are a focal end-user. Participating EM agencies are another key end-user, not only by benefiting from the research in the long run but through face-to-face interactions with community researchers through which opportunities and challenges in developing direct relationships with participating communities can be discussed and solutions progressed firsthand.

In this sense the research is being used as it develops, to benefit communities, relationship building and short-term achievable change. It is also aimed at the national agenda for partnerships with Indigenous land managers, seeking to inform the new Natural Hazards Research Australia[1] about future research priorities and to encourage more discussion, more experience sharing and broader engagement of Indigenous leaders and influential EM agency staff in collaborative workshops hosted by Communities in different jurisdictions on country. This latter aim reflects the success of this project{\textquoteright}s collaborations and use of this model as an ongoing forum to benefit the sector. See for example the Aims and Expectations of the final project workshop below.

\ The summary of next steps:

  1. Relevant EM agencies and community leaders to start or continue working on their relationship and achievable change now.
  2. This report, supported by participating agencies, is presented to the new Natural Hazards Research Australia as a foundation to attract a future fully funded program of collaborative PAR with community researchers and of partnered EM activity.
  3. For the next and future collaborative workshops to be planned and funding secured so they may become annual, focused, Indigenous led pillars of EM sector partnerships.
  4. Conversations continue at 3 levels: community level, transregional and across the multi-agency national conversation. This should include Qld, NT and WA EM agencies connecting more effectively with each other and supporting each other to progress partnership building at North Australia scale.
  5. Indigenous communities and land management groups, their representative organisations and supporters take whatever steps they are able to, to build resilience and capability in EM.
}, keywords = {challenges, Emergency management, fire management, Impact, indigenous, land management, opportunities, partnerships, research strategy, sustainability}, issn = {680}, author = {Glenn James and Danny Burton and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Barry Hunter and Jimmy Morrison and Ted Gondarra and James Bayung} } @article {bnh-8193, title = {Principles for enhanced collaboration between land and emergency management agencies and Indigenous peoples - green paper}, number = {701}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Several trends have recently converged to create considerable interest in enhancing collaboration in land and emergency management between Government agencies and First Nations peoples in southern Australia. These trends include: a growing number of grassroots First Nations peoples cultural fire and land management projects; increased media interest in these projects and their role in cultural revitalisation; increased policy focus within land and emergency management agencies on reconciliation, collaboration and partnership with First Nations peoples; as well as a range of findings from 2019-2020 bushfire season inquiries that recommend greater collaboration [e.g., 2]. Considering these trends, it should be noted both that there are multiple examples of successful collaboration or partnership relationships between government land and emergency management agencies and First Nations peoples across Australia and that, nonetheless, such forms of collaboration or partnership are not necessarily desired by all First Nations peoples.

To date there is a relative lack of academic research on this topic, however several successful case studies of the reintroduction of cultural fire management in southern Australia have been documented [3-7]. In 2021, state and territory governments across southern Australia were in various stages of engaging with First Nations peoples, with collaborative fire management policy ranging from whole-of-government reform for First Nations peoples{\textquoteright} self-determination to piecemeal ad hoc policy with limited resource allocation (Appendix 1). A review of academic and grey literature revealed that there is a range of benefits associated with contemporary First Nations peoples{\textquoteright} cultural fire and land management in southern Australia, including cultural, environmental, economic, wildfire management, political/self-determination, social, health and wellbeing benefits (Appendix 2).\  However, there are many barriers to a more widespread application of cultural fire and land management here and in other contexts (Appendix 3). Despite widespread goodwill and optimism, the revival of cultural fire and land management is highly contingent and generally relies upon routine persuasive labor and fragile intercultural diplomacy rather than robust policies and resourcing commitments.

}, keywords = {agencies, collaboration, Emergency management, indigenous, land management, principles}, issn = {701}, author = {Michelle McKemey and Timothy Neale and Oliver Costello} } @article {bnh-6902, title = {Non-Additive Effects of Forest Litter on Flammability}, journal = {Fire}, volume = {3}, year = {2020}, month = {05/2020}, abstract = {

Forest litter is a fuel component that is important for the propagation of fire. Data describing fuel load, structure and fuel condition were gathered for two sites of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest, a common vegetation type in the Sydney Basin, Australia. Surface litter from the sites was sorted into its constituent components and used to establish which component or mixture of components were the most flammable using several metrics. A general blending model was used to estimate the effect the different mixtures had on the response of the flammability metrics and identify non-additive effects. Optimisation methods were applied to the models to determine the mixture compositions that were the most or least flammable. Differences in the flammability of the two sites were significant and were driven by\ Allocasuarina littoralis. The presence of\ A. littoralis\ in litter mixtures caused non-additive effects, increasing the rate of flame spread and flame height non-linearly. We discuss how land managers could use these models as a tool to assist in prioritising areas for hazard reduction burns and how the methodology can be extended to other fuel conditions or forest types.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, general blending model, land management, non-additive effect, prescribed burn, simplex centroid design}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/fire3020012}, url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/3/2/12}, author = {Angela Gormley and Bell, Tina and Malcolm Possell} } @article {bnh-5720, title = {Challenges, Opportunities, and Pitfalls for Global Coupled Hydrologic-Hydraulic Modeling of Floods}, journal = {Water Resources Research}, volume = {55}, year = {2019}, month = {06/2019}, abstract = {

Flood modeling at the regional to global scale is a key requirement for equitable emergency and land management. Coupled hydrological-hydraulic models are at the core of flood forecasting and risk assessment models. Nevertheless, each model is subject to uncertainties from different sources (e.g., model structure, parameters, and inputs). Understanding how uncertainties propagate through the modeling cascade is essential to invest in data collection, increase flood modeling accuracy, and comprehensively communicate modeling results to end users. This study used a numerical experiment to quantify the propagation of errors when coupling hydrological and hydraulic models for multiyear flood event modeling in a large basin, with large morphological and hydrological variability. A coupled modeling chain consisting of the hydrological model Hydrologiska Byr{\r a}ns Vattenbalansavdelning and the hydraulic model LISFLOOD-FP was used for the prediction of floodplain inundation in the Murray Darling Basin (Australia), from 2006 to 2012. The impacts of discrepancies between simulated and measured flow hydrographs on the predicted inundation patterns were analyzed by moving from small upstream catchments to large lowland catchments. The numerical experiment was able to identify areas requiring tailored modeling solutions or data collection. Moreover, this study highlighted the high sensitivity of inundation volume and extent prediction to uncertainties in flood peak values and explored challenges in time-continuous modeling. Accurate flood peak predictions, knowledge of critical morphological features, and an event-based modeling approach were outlined as pragmatic solutions for more accurate prediction of large-scale spatiotemporal patterns of flood dynamics, particularly in the presence of low-accuracy elevation data.

}, keywords = {Emergency management, Flood, land management, modelling}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024289}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018WR024289}, author = {Stefania Grimaldi and Guy Schumann and Ashkan Shokri and Jeffrey Walker and Valentijn Pauwels} } @article {bnh-6000, title = {Globe-LFMC, a global plant water status database for vegetation ecophysiology and wildfire applications}, journal = {Scientific Data}, volume = {6}, year = {2019}, month = {08/2019}, abstract = {

Globe-LFMC is an extensive global database of live fuel moisture content (LFMC) measured from 1,383 sampling sites in 11 countries: Argentina, Australia, China, France, Italy, Senegal, Spain, South Africa, Tunisia, United Kingdom and the United States of America. The database contains 161,717 individual records based on in situ destructive samples used to measure LFMC, representing the amount of water in plant leaves per unit of dry matter. the primary goal of the database is to calibrate and validate remote sensing algorithms used to predict LFMC. However, this database is also relevant for the calibration and validation of dynamic global vegetation models, eco-physiological models of plant water stress as well as understanding the physiological drivers of spatiotemporal variation in LFMC at local, regional and global scales. Globe-LFMC should be useful for studying LFMC trends in response to environmental change and LFMC influence on wildfire occurrence, wildfire behavior, and overall vegetation health.

}, keywords = {database, Emergency management, land management, Natural disasters, Wildfire spread}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0164-9}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0164-9.epdf?author_access_token=HISJcfE-VovHPab3al2NwNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OARKV_7w7xO9p9PGwHd2zKbrs5f-VkYE5AC2lYTydBxaTKy0JaWSgXKUWz0U-fruuzViNrn1JJFl8mARAjGudmQfIcQsd98fM0zv-fk4bXxA\%3D\%3D}, author = {Marta Yebra and Gianluca Scortechini and Abdulbaset Badi and Maria Eugenia Beget and Matthias M. Boer and Ross Bradstock and Emilio Chuvieco and F. Mark Danson and Philip Dennison and Victor Resco de Dios and Carlos M. Di Bella and Greg Forsyth and Philip Frost and Mariano Garcia and Abdelaziz Hamdi and Binbin He and Matt Jolly and Tineke Kraaij and Pillar Martin and Florent Mouillot and Glenn J Newnham and Rachael Nolan and Grazia Pellizzaro and Yi Qi and Xingwen Quan and David Ria{\~n}o and Dar Roberts and Momadou Sow and Susan Ustin} } @mastersthesis {bnh-6624, title = {Domestic architecture and the perception of risk in bushfire-prone areas}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, school = {University of Sydney}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

This thesis examines the way in which the architecture of a house, specifically construction materials and the structure{\textquoteright}s immediate environs, influences residents{\textquoteright} perception of bushfire risk. Three research questions were used to consider different aspects of risk perception for domestic architecture within a bushfire context. These questions were: {\textbullet} Do residents living in bushfire-prone areas of Australia give the same bushfire risk rating to their locality and their house? Do these reflect the bushfire risk for the same area as assessed by the state fire authority? {\textbullet} When anticipating a bushfire, which parts of their current house do residents in bushfire-prone areas of Australia believe to be the safest and which parts the most vulnerable? {\textbullet} What architectural interventions might change residents{\textquoteright} perceptions of the bushfire risk of their homes? The method used to test the research questions was mixed methods with pragmatism as the research worldview. A questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative questions was distributed to residents in eight sample sites selected from bushfire-prone areas of the Blue Mountains and the Central Coast of NSW, Australia. The questionnaire was completed by 252 respondents either in print or electronic form. The majority of respondents gave a lower bushfire risk rating for their local area than their local fire authority, the NSW Rural Fire Service. The majority of respondents gave the same or a lower risk rating for their house than for their local area. During a bushfire respondents indicated they intended to take shelter in up to twenty different places/parts of their house and immediate environs. While the bathroom was the most frequent choice, it represented less than one quarter of responses given. Respondents identified up to ten different places/parts of their house and immediate environs that they intended to avoid during a bushfire, with upstairs rooms and spaces being the most frequent choices. Materials used in the construction of homes did not appear to influence how respondents allocated the bushfire risk to their house. Rather it was the area directly surrounding their house and its proximity to bushland (particularly National Parks) that respondents used to determine the bushfire risk of their property. Non-architectural variables such as gender, age, pet ownership, property ownership, and responsibility for dependents had little effect on the way respondents allocated their bushfire risk. The age of the house also did not influence respondents{\textquoteright} perception of their bushfire risk with respondents in houses constructed to the latest building codes (AS 3959) not indicating that their houses had greater bushfire resistance. Respondents identified fifteen architectural improvements to increase the safety of houses during a bushfire; the most frequently ones were, roof sprinklers and the clearing of vegetation close to the house. For architectural improvement, four overarching themes emerged: specific bushfire-resistant additions; building construction; cleared space/limited vegetation; and building maintenance/defence. The findings of this research, when evaluated against industry knowledge, may be useful in developing new regulatory standards or providing advice in relation to new or existing homes in wild/forest/bushfire-prone areas of the world.

}, keywords = {architecture, Bushfire, land management, Risk perception}, url = {https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/18959}, author = {Brown, Douglas} }