The prescribed burning debate in Australia: conflicts and compatibilities

Abstract

Following the unprecedented series of bushfires in Victoria (Australia) over the past decade, public debate is fierce over the use of prescribed burning to reduce wildfire hazard. These deliberations are full of uncertainties over effectiveness and consequences, reflecting a lack of high level evidence-based debate, and appear polarised between people prioritising asset protection and others prioritising biodiversity. Using a textual analysis of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry, we investigate how people frame the risks of prescribed burning, the certainty of its outcomes and what values they evoke in order to justify their views. We find that differences do not necessarily arise from divergent priorities about nature, people or assets, but instead from contrasting views about whether humans or nature are voluntarily or involuntarily exposed to wildfire risk.

Keywords:

• Wildfire
• prescribed burning
• risk perception
• uncertainty
• values
• Victoria (Australia)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Haripriya Rangan, Bruce Missingham and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1. Submissions to the Inquiry were accessed online at http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/inquiries/article/1145. Authors of quotations we cite from these submissions are indicated in brackets following the quote. The resulting inquiry report is ENRC (2008).

2. The Royal Commission which followed the 2009 bushfires produced just such recommendations, widely discussed in the media following debates that – as far as prescribed burning is concerned – echoed those we found in the 2008 Inquiry. The government accepted all of the Commission’s recommendations except the proposal to buy back properties in risky sites.