Is staying at home the safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence for an Australian approach

John Handmer , Amalie Tibbits
{"title":"Is staying at home the safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence for an Australian approach","authors":"John Handmer ,&nbsp;Amalie Tibbits","doi":"10.1016/j.hazards.2005.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Australian bushfire agencies have a position that people in the path of a fire should either prepare, stay and defend their properties, or leave the area well before the fire front arrives. The position is based largely on observations that evacuating at the last minute is often fatal and that, generally, a key factor in house survival during a wildfire is the presence of people in the building. In practice, full implementation of the position has been difficult for a range of reasons.</p><p>As part of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) research effort 〈<span>www.bushfirecrc.com</span><svg><path></path></svg>〉, our project is examining the evidence base for this position and aims to suggest ways of improving implementation.</p><p>We have found that the available evidence, which goes back some 60<!--> <!-->yr, strongly supports the Australian position. The position is supported on the grounds of both improved safety and reduced property loss. The evidence also shows that the most dangerous option—and the cause of most fatalities—is last minute evacuation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100587,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","volume":"6 2","pages":"Pages 81-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hazards.2005.10.006","citationCount":"118","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464286705000203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 118

Abstract

Australian bushfire agencies have a position that people in the path of a fire should either prepare, stay and defend their properties, or leave the area well before the fire front arrives. The position is based largely on observations that evacuating at the last minute is often fatal and that, generally, a key factor in house survival during a wildfire is the presence of people in the building. In practice, full implementation of the position has been difficult for a range of reasons.

As part of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) research effort 〈www.bushfirecrc.com〉, our project is examining the evidence base for this position and aims to suggest ways of improving implementation.

We have found that the available evidence, which goes back some 60 yr, strongly supports the Australian position. The position is supported on the grounds of both improved safety and reduced property loss. The evidence also shows that the most dangerous option—and the cause of most fatalities—is last minute evacuation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在森林大火期间,呆在家里是最安全的选择吗?这是澳大利亚方法的历史证据
澳大利亚森林火灾机构的立场是,处于火灾路径上的人们要么做好准备,留下来保护自己的财产,要么在火灾到来之前离开该地区。这一立场主要是基于这样的观察:在最后一刻撤离往往是致命的,而且,通常情况下,在野火期间,房屋生存的一个关键因素是建筑物中有人的存在。在实践中,由于一系列原因,这一立场难以全面实施。作为森林大火合作研究中心(CRC)研究工作< www.bushfirecrc.com >的一部分,我们的项目正在研究这一立场的证据基础,旨在提出改进实施的方法。我们发现,现有的证据可以追溯到大约60年前,有力地支持澳大利亚的立场。支持这一立场的理由是既改善了安全,又减少了财产损失。证据还表明,最危险的选择——也是造成大多数死亡的原因——是最后一刻的撤离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publisher's Note Is staying at home the safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence for an Australian approach A potential crisis in wildfire emergency response capability? Australia's volunteer firefighters Mitigation of the heat island effect in urban New Jersey Interactions between scientific uncertainty and flood management decisions: Two case studies in Colorado
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1