Few, if any, natural disasters evoke the gamut of emotions within a community more than the sight of a catastrophic wildland fire bearing down. The visual effect alone can be awe-inspiring and the ever-present media with their live feeds and news helicopters ensure that everyone is aware of what is going on and what the potential affect is likely to be.

The sight of mass evacuations best illustrates the potential trauma those residents face. Modern communications bring to the world's living rooms the pathos and suffering of those who don't know what is happening, don't know if their families and friends are safe, and certainly don't know whether their homes still are standing or, worse still, whether their lifelong memories still are intact.

We must consider whether mass evacuations in the face of major wildfire events provides the most appropriate solution. In protecting life and property, are we choosing the easy way out by evacuating citizens and even firefighters, letting the survival or destruction of a home take the form of a lottery? Surely this is effectively abandoning the very communities we are there to protect. Alternately, should we be providing citizens with the wherewithal to enable them to make informed decisions and effectively contribute toward the protection of their own properties?

THE AUSSIE APPROACH

Clearly we have a responsibility to protect both life and property, but we would all agree that there are many ways of doing just that. We would be remiss if we didn't critically review and learn from our combined experience when it comes to managing the large wildland-urban interface fire.

The Australian experience has been that mass evacuations of communities should not be undertaken. People who stay behind reduce the loss of both life and property. Some people may say “That's fine, but how can you leave people in their houses when such a threat occurs, and what do you do about those people who want to leave their houses anyway?” This is perfectly valid.

Australian wildland fire authorities do not, as a matter of course, recommend nor undertake mass evacuations. Having said that, there are certain criteria that are applied to test the need for evacuation, and householders can apply these criteria to their own circumstances. Australian wildland fire authorities argue that if a house that has been properly prepared and the occupiers are fit and well, then occupiers can be of tremendous assistance to the firefighting authorities, serving as key additional resources in the firefighting effort.

The supporting evidence for such a position is overwhelming. Research undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization over many years has shown that a properly prepared house is in fact a safe haven rather than a risk in times of major wildland fires. The advantages of “shelter in place,” as it is called in North America, is even more obvious when the statistics relating to deaths as a result of people trying to out-run or even out-drive a fire are taken into account.

Contrary to popular opinion — and despite the media hype — houses do not “explode” in the face of an oncoming fire. In fact, the structure comes under attack from three distinct phases of the fire as it approaches: ember attack, radiated heat and direct flame impingement.

Research in Australia has shown that the most likely cause of a house catching fire is ember attack and that the majority of houses which burn down do so after the main fire front has passed. This occurs as a result of not extinguishing burning embers that have lodged in and around the house. In extremely windy conditions, which tend to be the norm during fire events of this nature, the ember attack on the properties can occur for a considerable period of time and well before the arrival of the fire front. If an able-bodied person is in attendance immediately before and after the fire passes, then the properly prepared house almost certainly would survive, along with the occupiers' precious personal belongings.

HOMEOWNERS' RESOURCES

The fact remains that when a major wildland fire touches on the urban interface, exposing hundreds of homes to a simultaneous threat, there never will be sufficient firefighting resources available to cope with the situation. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the dynamic nature of wildland-urban interface fires ensures that they are continually on the move; as one area of threat is eased, another becomes exposed, requiring the firefighting resources to move with the fire front from street to street. No fire authority is ever going to achieve sufficient resources to provide an appliance to every house even while it's under direct threat, let alone as the fire moves away.

It's far more efficient to have the added resource of the homeowners who, given the proper information and advice, can undertake the vitally important role of extinguishing the embers that potentially threaten the integrity of any structure.

The question then becomes one of what do we, as fire authorities, have to do to best prepare our urban interface communities to withstand the affect of the inevitable threat of wildland fire. Clearly, while the mass evacuation of streets in the path of an approaching fire may minimize loss of life — although some evidence exists around the world of deaths as a result of “evacuation panic” — such a strategy will not afford community assets the quality of protection to which they are entitled.

The alternative is to ensure that the urban interface is managed in such a way that owners/occupiers can feel safe within their residences. They also should be equipped with the knowledge that is required for them to assist in the protection of their property in a safe and efficient manner.

The key issue in achieving this outcome is recognizing that the strategy for the protection of urban interface communities has to be both cooperative and multi-faceted. All of the players — the legislators, the community as a whole, the residents directly affected and the fire authorities — must have a committed approach to the prevention and mitigation of wildland fire to reduce the staggering losses, both human and economic, that can occur.

Coupled with this commitment has to be a recognition that if we choose to live in an urban environment on the fringe of the wildland, then we must be prepared to compromise if for no other reason than the fact that nature is unforgiving. It's interesting to note that people generally accept that there needs to be construction guidelines for the building of structures subject to the ravages of either earthquakes or cyclonic winds, but those same people often see appropriate guidelines being applied to structures within a high-risk wildland-urban interface area as onerous.

There are three main components to the protection of the community:

1. The effective management of fuel loadings on the urban interface irrespective of the land tenure;

2. The creation of effective asset-protection zones (defensible space) and building designs on the urban interface; and

3. Education programs designed to inform the community about how to prepare their properties to enable them to better withstand the ravages of wildland fire.

In New South Wales all three of these components come together at the local level through District Bush Fire Management Committees. The committees, which draw membership from all the key stakeholders, have as their principal charter the development of both an operations plan and a risk-management plan. While the operations plan is generally self-explanatory, it's the risk-management plan that provides the platform for the ongoing prevention and mitigation of bush fires using the three components referred to above.

It's this plan that sets out the measures that will be taken on an ongoing basis to ensure the community as a whole is protected from the ravages of wildland fire. The plan details fuel-management strategies for all land tenures within the district, as well as community education strategies ranging from street-based self-help groups to school education programs, all of which are designed to minimize the risk to the community during wildland-urban interface fires.

Coupled with the strategies contained within the risk management plan, the legislative support provided to both local councils and fire services empowers them with the relative risk for any given area. Armed with the risk-management plan, land owners/occupiers are encouraged with public education programs to undertake such preventative actions.

All of these actions, by their very nature, be undertaken prior to the advent of any major fire event. It is inevitable, however, that major wildland fires will continue to threaten the urban interface during adverse weather conditions and stretch fire suppression resources to the limit, as seen in both Australia and North America over the past two years. It's at these times that the fire authorities have a duty to keep the community advised so as to allow them to make informed decisions in the interest of their own safety.

As a bonus, a well-informed and well-prepared community becomes more of a help than a hindrance to the fire services.

NECESSARY EVACUATIONS

While Australian fire authorities don't as a rule support evacuations from properly prepared residences, in every community there will be those who are vulnerable. The aged and infirmed, the very young, and those with respiratory or other medical conditions who are likely to be exacerbated by the smoke and fire, would be better cared for by being taken away from the impact zone. These people need credible, advanced information to assess their individual situations with regard to evacuation, coupled with an understanding that if they decide to evacuate they should do so well ahead of the arrival of the fire. Fire death statistics from around the world are littered with stories of people who perished while trying at the last minute to outrun an approaching wildland fire.

It's incumbent on both the fire services and the relevant government authorities to ensure that those people who would choose to stay and protect their possessions in the face of an approaching wildland fire are provided with the best possible information during the event.

This, coupled with community understanding for the need for ongoing mitigation measures, should ensure that properly prepared structures on the interface can be safe havens for the occupants and withstand the impact of wildland-urban interface fires.

By fire services taking a leading role in the education of their communities with regard to wildland-urban interface fire protection and relevant government authorities supporting the effort with appropriate legislation and codes, there will be an inevitable reduction in number of lives lost and properties destroyed. Such a result benefits all stakeholders.

Asst. Commissioner Keith A. Harrap is the acting executive director of operations support for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. In December, he was elected to the board of directors of the International Association of Wildland Fire. Harrap also will be presenting “Protecting the Wildland/Urban Interface Community: The Australian Perspective” at Wildfire 2004.