Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the level of physical preparation for bushfire among Victorian residents in established high risk bushfire locations, and to assess whether these levels of preparation changed over time.

Data were analysed from a telephone survey among Victorian residents (n=614-629) living in high risk bushfire locations over a three-year period (2012-2014). The survey measured residents’ bushfire awareness, knowledge, planning, preparation and engagement with bushfire services. This paper focusses on the extent to which respondents undertook physical preparatory bushfire activities over the three-year period using: first, principal components analysis to generate a single preparation variable by identifying a smaller number of uncorrelated variables (or principal components) from a larger set of data, second, analysis of variance to assess differences in preparation scores between years, and third, Tukey’s honest significant difference test to confirm where the differences occurred between groups.

Results indicated only moderate levels of physical preparation for bushfires amongst respondents. The activities that respondents rated the lowest were: “having protective covers for windows” and “having firefighting equipment to protect the house”. A significant difference in total preparation scores over time was observed, F(2, 1,715)=6.159, p<0.005, with lower scores in 2012 compared with 2013 and 2014 scores.

This study found some marginal improvements in levels of physical bushfire preparation from 2012 to 2014. However, the results indicate only moderate levels of preparation overall, despite respondents living in established high risk locations.

This study provides evidence for the current levels of preparedness in high risk bushfire communities, and emphasises the need for future initiatives to focus on specific bushfire preparation activities but also to consider the broader range of interventions that are likely to contribute to desired safety outcomes.

Road trauma remains a significant concern internationally. Traffic crashes rank within the top three leading causes of death for individuals aged between 15–44 years old, with nonfatal casualties occurring at around 30 times the rate of fatal incidents. Historically, road safety research has not captured factors relating to driving purpose. However, more recently, researchers have focused on the importance of driving for work. Over a third of traffic volume represents commuting or driving in the line of employment; improving workplace road safety practices represents a tangible way of reducing road trauma. This chapter considers the link between safety culture and best practice in workplace road safety. It is argued that best practice is not a term to define individual safety practices, but a system of practices that create a culture of safety. This research uses data collected on organizations workplace road safety practices within the Australian context. This data has been collected by the National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP); an initiative that constitutes a network of organizations and academics working together to develop a positive road safety culture. Twenty-four case studies are presented of organizations that have implemented workplace road safety programs to improve their safe driving culture. Qualitative analysis was conducted to systematically categorize the safety initiatives and their indicators of success. Almost all case studies expressed the importance of developing a safety-first culture in the workplace. Third-party regulation, internal policy and corporate social responsibility form the foundation of workplace safety. However, it was the culture and attitude towards the safety initiatives that achieved effectiveness in the long-term. The findings of this research support the argument that best practice is best achieved when integrated within a culture that values and prioritizes safety, rather than implemented in isolation to other elements in the workplace system.