Published works

Fire & Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC) engaged Risk Frontiers to examine the effectiveness of Community Fire Units (CFUs) activated in the Blue Mountains, NSW during the period of heightened bushfire activity from 17 to 23 October 2013. Four focus groups, one interview and an online survey were utilised in order to explore 1) the activities undertaken and their impact on damage reduction and 2) the effectiveness of the equipment and training provided to CFU members.

Fieldwork was conducted between December 2013 and February 2014. The questionnaire was completed by 328 CFU members, giving a response rate of 32.5%. The predominant respondents were men, aged 55–64 years, working full-time, living in their own home as a couple without dependents and working more than 20 km from their home. A total of six CFUs were included in the focus groups and interview, with a total of 22 men and three women in attendance. All four focus groups and the interview were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. Salient themes in the qualitative data were coded according to the specific aims of the research. Quotes are provided where possible in order for the respondent’s voices to be heard.

The conclusions and findings section summarises the most salient points emerging from the quantitative and qualitative results in relation to the aims and objectives of the research. These findings are provided for FRNSW to consider in the context of their CFU program.

The main findings include:

• Overall the majority of respondents are happy with their CFU and in addition to reduced bushfire risk their involvement has improved the sense of community and social capital in their local area.
• Official activation was a problem either because four members were not present or there were significant problems when using the activation phone line.
• The majority of questionnaire respondents heard first about the fires from official sources such as the RFS and media, followed by FRNSW notification and physical signs in the environment.
• The majority of respondents detailed how they undertook activities to prepare properties and equipment, provide advice, assistance, and communication, and in some cases training to non-CFU members, clear vegetation and keep a lookout. Assisting fire services with the provision of local information and with back burning operations were important activities undertaken as was monitoring for flare ups in areas which had been burnt. A total of 14% of the questionnaire respondents undertook active defence of their properties.
• A total of 27% of questionnaire respondents believe that the actions undertaken by their CFU reduced impacts in their community (this percentage is high given that 61% had no fire threat). Many respondents cited adequate training, equipment and preparedness as to why they were able to successfully defend homes and properties. In some cases it was noted that their presence enabled professional agencies to focus their attention in other areas.
• The data highlights that working within the very black and white rules that govern CFU operations is extremely difficult when a unit finds themselves actually defending their homes and street. The data indicates that respondents 1) considered that useful defence can occur with less than four members present and 2) often found themselves working just outside their area of operations when assisting other fire services with hazard reduction activities. Moreover, one CFU stated that as they were missing members the best way to utilise their equipment and cover the area at risk was to allow non CFU members, who were present, to assist them under the strict supervision of the fully trained unit members.
• Communication during activation between unit members is extremely challenging. Mobile phone coverage is poor and UHF radios purchased by units themselves were the most effective means identified.
• The majority felt that the basic training they had received was adequate. However, gaps were noted in terms of specific training on the likely fire behaviour in their local area and the best strategies for protection. This point also included the need for advice on the high risk spots where members may get into difficulties. The need for experience working with and extinguishing real fires was highlighted and members felt that this could be provided through assisting fire authorities with hazard reduction burns or fire simulation exercises.
• CFU members communicated a considerable amount with their non-CFU neighbours during the period of the fires around the status of the fires, the dangers posed and what people should do to reduce their risks and prepare their homes. A number noted that they would be willing to do more to communicate and assist in their neighbour’s preparations if supported by FRNSW to do so.
• Few respondents reported problems while using or testing CFU equipment. However, many of the respondents declared that extra equipment is needed by their CFU so that they can defend homes and properties effectively during a future activation.
• The focus groups revealed that many CFU members do not have a clear idea about 1) their plans and triggers if a situation to stay and defend becomes untenable or 2) the safest fall back options and evacuation points in their home and area. There is a need to inform members that they should not rely on official warnings, as they may not be readily available in every situation. FRNSW need to develop guidelines to inform CFU members on the pros and cons around the use of safe rooms within their homes.