Who To Trust?
How consistent warnings could improve community responses on Extreme bushfire risk days
In June 2021, the Dandenong Ranges were under COVID-19 Pandemic lockdown orders when locals were concurrently warned of a large impending storm. The storm’s anticipated gusts, in excess of 100 kph, would have ordinarily triggered many to head off the mountain for safety, but the ‘stay at home’ orders created a great deal of what academics deem ‘objective conflict’ (Dootson et al., 2022). Objective conflict signifies a type of conflict arising due to differences in goals, aims, or objectives amongst individuals, groups or organisations. While we’re thankfully no longer under lockdown orders (and may they never return), MotHs is keenly aware how inconsistencies in emergency warning information are undermining residents’ ability to critically evaluate and respond to emergency warnings and disempowering individuals to make informed decisions during crises. MotHs wants to see a review of the Central District size and consistent messaging between the emergency service agencies and the Education Department
In uncertain times, people naturally seek more information before taking action. They want to know what's happening and what steps to take to stay safe. This information can come from different sources like social and environmental cues. Conflicting and misleading information is a global issue causing significant uncertainty. While misinformation involves sharing false information knowingly or accidentally, conflicting information presents logically inconsistent propositions (Dootson et al., 2021; McLennan et al., 2013).
Inconsistent emergency warning information can lead to confusion, uncertainty, and potentially dangerous outcomes (Kinateder et al., 2014; Whittacker et al., 2020). Conflicting information may arise due to various factors such as miscommunication, differing sources of information, or updates in real-time situations.
We have recently seen such conflicting responses from the Education Department and Vic Emergency over the bushfire ratings. Twice in the past two weeks, the CFA has categorised the District Bushfire Danger Rating as Extreme while the Education Department has deemed it High. This caused immense frustration and confusion among local residents, delaying responses and making it more difficult for locals to evaluate their situation.
A significant example is the disparity between bushfire policies for childcare centres and schools. Many childcare centres shut on CFA declared Extreme bushfire rating days. Schools shut on Education Department declared Extreme bushfire rating days. Having primary and high schools remain open whilst childcare centres close trips off a cascading series of concerns:
Teachers with children in child care are forced to quickly find care;
Carers whose own bushfire plan is to leave a bushfire risk area on Extreme days may reconsider their decisions with additional people to care for;
Teachers whose family bushfire plan is to leave a bushfire risk area on Extreme fire rating days are forced to ignore their own plans;
The CFA warnings are ignored until people hear from the Education Department.
Conflicting information leading up to and during emergencies can lead to hesitation or inaction and undermines trust in emergency authorities and the information they communicate.
It is an ongoing situation with dangerous consequences. Conflicting information leading up to and during emergencies can lead to hesitation or inaction and undermines trust in emergency communication and authorities. Instead of acting swiftly to protect themselves and their belongings, individuals may spend additional time verifying information (Dootson et al., 2022). Individuals may make decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information, putting themselves and others at greater risk. Uncertainty and confusion resulting from conflicting information can increase anxiety and panic among affected individuals and communities. This emotional distress can further impair decision-making and response efforts.
Above all, what is concerning is how the differing ratings between the CFA and the Education Department undermine the authority of and trust in the CFA. Trust is crucial for effective emergency response. If people doubt the reliability of warnings, they are less likely to follow their bushfire plans or other safety instructions. Considering how tirelessly the CFA works to educate locals and encourage each of us to implement our bushfire plans, watching their efforts unravel with each contradictory bushfire rating announcement by the Education Department is disheartening.
We understand why the Education Department is choosing to evaluate bushfire risk at a localised level. We have experienced Extreme bushfire ratings for the Central District when it is dry and scorching hot in parts of the district, while cool and wet in the Dandenong Ranges. We support the change from the previous McArthur-based fire danger ratings too (details here). Moving away from outdated fire danger ratings is a step towards better protection for all communities, although the size of each rating wedge is encouraging locals to search for the day’s Fire Behaviour Index (FBI) scale number to make more informed decisions. What we don’t support is the conflicting information that can result.
To address conflicting emergency warnings, we are asking for improved collaboration among authorities, notably the CFA, Emergency Management Victoria and the Education Department. Clear, consistent, and timely communication with coordinated messaging across agencies and departments and updating as needed. Educating the public on evaluating and responding to warnings empowers informed decision-making. A review of the size of the Central district, given the huge topographical differences, should also be considered.
In the absence of concerted efforts to address conflicting emergency warnings, we risk perpetuating a cycle of confusion and mistrust that undermines the very fabric of our community resilience. Watching the confusion, frustration and anxiety build in our community each time the CFA’s Extreme bushfire ratings are usurped by the Education Department’s localised assessment is a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. Clear, consistent, and timely communication is the keystone of effective emergency response. By fostering coordination and transparency, we can empower individuals to make informed decisions and mitigate the risks posed by conflicting information. It’s concerning to know that this conflicting information is encouraging locals to ignore advice and ‘go it alone’. MotHs wants a review of the size of the Central District and improved collaboration on messaging between the emergency services and the Education Department.
Three years ago, the dual challenges of COVID-19 lockdowns and impending storms created an objective conflict with opposing threats and guidelines creating uncertainty as to the best course of action. Today MotHs again observes the effects of conflicting emergency warnings on residents, hampering their ability to make prudent, well-informed decisions. Conflicting information erodes trust in emergency communication systems, fostering hesitancy and confusion among the public. Inconsistencies in bushfire ratings between the CFA and the Education Department have elicited frustration and delayed responses, particularly concerning childcare and school closures during extreme fire danger.
With the exception of our local State member for Monbulk, our request for a response on this issue has been ignored. What will it take to see a coordinated warning response?
References:
Dootson, P, Thomson, TJ, Angus, D, Miller, S, Hurcombe, E & Smith, A (2021), ‘Managing problematic visual media in natural hazard emergencies’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 59, viewed 24 February 2024, <https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=94d9b794-7d54-33ff-b9a5-64b26628ec07>.
Dootson, P, Kuligowski, E, Greer, DA, Miller, SA & Tippett, V (2022), ‘Consistent and conflicting information in floods and bushfires impact risk information seeking, risk perceptions, and protective action intentions’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 70, viewed 24 February 2024, <https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=6d148440-d56e-3cc3-b08d-47f8df88f6b0>.
Kinateder, M, Müller, M, Jost, M, Mühlberger, A & Pauli, P (2014), ‘Social influence in a virtual tunnel fire – Influence of conflicting information on evacuation behaviour’, Applied Ergonomics, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1649–1659, viewed 24 February 2024, <https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9f65724f-5b98-3202-93da-702c3c730eee>
McLennan, J, Elliott, G, Omodei, M & Whittaker, J (2013), ‘Householders’ safety-related decisions, plans, actions and outcomes during the 7 February 2009 Victorian (Australia) wildfires’, Fire Safety Journal, vol. 61, pp. 175–184, viewed 24 February 2024, <https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=8fbba36e-e1e5-31ad-a697-ffb8e1c4bf1c>.
Whittaker, J, Taylor, M & Bearman, C (2020), ‘Why don’t bushfire warnings work as intended? Responses to official warnings during bushfires in New South Wales, Australia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 45, viewed 24 February 2024, <https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9804c806-88ad-3bf2-b596-efecc78eead2>.
Your subscription would mean the world to us. If you have ever been supported or benefited from the work MotHs does, please consider supporting us to keep it going. A little help will go a long way.
