The prescribed burning debate in Australia: Conflicts and compatibilities

Khulan Altangerel, Christian A. Kull

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)103-120
JournalJournal of Environmental Planning and Management
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

prescribed burning
wildfire
Biodiversity
assets
Hazards
hazard
biodiversity
deliberation
uncertainty
lack
evidence
conflict
Values
public
analysis
Uncertainty

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{6f7eb0623e60435b9747d9fd11a8a4a2,
title = "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)",
author = "Khulan Altangerel and Kull, {Christian A.}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1080/09640568.2011.652831",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "103--120",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Planning and Management",
issn = "0964-0568",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

The prescribed burning debate in Australia: Conflicts and compatibilities. / Altangerel, Khulan; Kull, Christian A.

In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2013, p. 103-120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The prescribed burning debate in Australia: Conflicts and compatibilities

AU - Altangerel, Khulan

AU - Kull, Christian A.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - wildfire

KW - prescribed burning

KW - risk perception

KW - uncertainty

KW - values

KW - Victoria (Australia)

U2 - 10.1080/09640568.2011.652831

DO - 10.1080/09640568.2011.652831

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 103

EP - 120

JO - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

SN - 0964-0568

IS - 1

ER -