Side project: Environmental Livelihood Security in Southeast Asia and Oceania (IWMI white paper)

As well as my PhD research on VGI and bushfire preparation, this year I've been involved with another project working with a diverse group of talented researchers from the Universities of Sydney, Southampton, Western Australia and Auckland, and other regional partners based in the SE Asia region. We've been working on the concept of Environmental Livelihood Security (ELS) in the SE Asia and Oceania region, observing a need to explicitly incorporate livelihoods into current water/energy/food-nexus thinking to build resilience to future climate challenges and further enhance capacity for change. Working with individuals from across such diverse backgrounds and geographically spread across the globe presented  some challenges, but also vast benefits, including a wealth of expertise and fresh ideas and different perspectives on problems. Our first major task as a group was to review the current literature. Myself and other 'early career researchers' from each institution produced this together. Project leads then reviewed and edited before the research group met in Perth in June 2014 for a workshop to discuss. The result is a peer-reviewed white paper published through the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), providing an exceptional amount of background and framing material for the topic of ELS. It's titled Environmental Livelihood Security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: A Water-Energy-Food-Livelihoods Nexus Approach for Spatially Assessing Change, and you can download it from this link if you want. I've provided the executive summary and citation below.

The research team on a fieldtrip during the Perth workshop, June 2014. Photo: Dr Eloise Biggs, Twitter @EllieMBiggs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document addresses the need for explicit inclusion of livelihoods within the environment nexus (water-energy-food security), not only responding to literature gaps but also addressing emerging dialogue from existing nexus consortia. We present the first conceptualization of ‘environmental livelihood security’, which combines the nexus perspective with sustainable livelihoods. The geographical focus of this paper is Southeast Asia and Oceania, a region currently wrought by the impacts of a changing climate. Climate change is the primary external forcing mechanism on the environmental livelihood security of communities in Southeast Asia and Oceania which, therefore, forms the applied crux of this paper. Finally, we provide a primer for using geospatial information to develop a spatial framework to enable geographical assessment of environmental livelihood security across the region. We conclude by linking the value of this research to ongoing sustainable development discussions, and for influencing policy agendas. The paper is split into three main parts:

Part I: The Environment of Southeast Asia and Oceania
The first part of this paper provides background environmental information to introduce the geography of Southeast Asia and Oceania and the importance of sustainable livelihoods and water-energy-food security in the region. The first component describes the state of the environment including details on climate, climate change and important environmental impacts such as sea-level rise, pollution, and changes in extreme events. The next section investigates vulnerabilities and pressures – social, cultural, political and environmental – on the geographical system, with clear reference to climate adaptation and socio-ecological resilience. Finally, water, energy and food securities are discussed in detail, providing theoretical grounding and an applied link to climate change and issues of governance.

Part II: Conceptualizing ‘Environmental Livelihood Security’
Having described both the natural and human environmental systems in Part I, this part provides a full conceptualization of what we term ‘Environmental Livelihood Security’. A substantive literature review is provided to bring together the theory of environmental security with sustainable livelihoods, in order to introduce environmental livelihood security as a means of conceptualizing livelihoods within the nexus. Multiple facets of governance provide influential material and provide synergy to the theory discussed in Part I.

Part III: Geospatial Information for Assessing Environmental Livelihood Security
in Southeast Asia and Oceania
The final part of this paper explores the potential for using quantitative and qualitative geospatial information to monitor the environment and livelihoods in Southeast Asia and Oceania. This provides a primer for enabling measurement of environmental livelihood security in the region. Potential indicators and available datasets for monitoring water-energy-food security, the vulnerabilities and pressures, and toolkits for sustainable livelihoods are discussed.

Biggs, E. M.; Boruff, B.; Bruce, E.; Duncan, J. M. A.; Haworth, B.; Duce, S.; Horsley, J.; Curnow, J.; Neef, A.; McNeill, K.; Pauli, N.; Van Ogtrop, F.; Imanari, Y. 2014. Environmental livelihood security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: a water-energy-food-livelihoods nexus approach for spatially assessing change. White paper. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 114p. doi: 10.5337/2014.231

'Community' and Emergency Management: a problematic construct

Image courtesy of alphacoders.com

We hear the term 'community' used widely in a variety of contexts. We talk about communities being defined geographically (a town as a 'local community', for example), we talk about communities being defined by shared interests (an online gaming community or a sports community, for instance), and we talk about communities as groups that share some characteristic somewhat outside of chosen interests, such as a group impacted by a natural disaster, perhaps.  We talk about the 'sense of community' that particular places or groups, such as organised religion, may provide. We even talk about community as something we can build.  Sometimes we choose to be part of these communities and sometimes they are chosen for us, either by others in that particular community or society in general.  Here I'm thinking about things like homosexual individuals being considered by others around them as part of a 'gay community' whose interests and values they may in fact identify very minimally with.  Thus it may be the case that we see individuals as part of a particular community, but if asked, they may not see themselves that way.  So I question, how can one term adequately cover all these vastly different circumstances?

I find the term 'community' somewhat puzzling and I feel I'm not the only one.  Yet, the term is employed practically and ubiquitously without much question (including by me in my own research).  What does the term 'community' actually mean?  Is 'community' measurable?  Where does the term have value and where is it problematic?  And in the cases that it is problematic, is there an alternative way of thinking we should adopt?  There are many issues to explore here, so I am going to focus on community in the context of emergency management, partly for a framing of my thoughts, and partly because having ties to this industry through my research has highlighted to me some of the ways I think the term is useful and some of the ways I think it is problematic in this context.

Defining 'community' in emergency management

Emergency management in policy and practice utilises a range of key concepts that are in part defined by the term 'community'.  The 'community safety approach' involves empowering communities to share responsibility for risk management, focusing on preparation and planning and developing partnerships between communities and risk management agencies (McLennan & Handmer 2012).  'Community resilience' is a set of characteristics describing how a social system responds and manages disruption (Foster & Hoy 2012).  'Community engagement' is an organised process of working with specific groups of people connected by a geographic location, special interest, affiliation or identity to address issues affecting their well-being (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2012).  Even considering just these three examples gives me a slightly blurry impression of what community means in an emergency management context.  Is it about partnerships or responsibility of risk?  Is it a social system?  Is it a group connected by location or interests?  Is it all these things at once or does its meaning change?  If we are to base emergency management on the community, and if we are to engage the community in planning and self-protection, we require a clear and accurate sense of what is meant by community (Buckle 1999).

The meaning of 'community' may have different meanings for different people.  The Oxford dictionaries (2014) define community as a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.  For emergency management a common characteristic may be something as broad as being at risk to a common hazard, such as bushfire.  Buckle (1999) describes community as any grouping of people that have something in common or something shared (and believing that they have something in common and having only that as a communal attribute may be sufficient to define a community).  Frandsen (2012) emphasises that communities are unbounded by physical locale.  In emergency management practice, however, community is often taken as synonymous with the people living within a defined administrative, cultural, or populated spatial unit, for example a local government area, town or locality (Buckle 1999).  Community, it seems to me, particularly refers to members of the general public; rarely have I seen those working in the emergency management industry refer to themselves in official dialogue as part of the communities they are working to keep safe (but perhaps this is just semantic).  What is meant by 'community' and whether or not it is an understood concept (in theory and in practice) may have important implications for the success and value of emergency management approaches centered upon it.

'Community' as useful

There are benefits in emergency management to considering the community as the simple delineation of groups of people based on geographic or administrative boundaries.  This approach is logistically useful in terms of provision of services and dispatch of emergency vehicles, personnel and resources for disaster response.  For preparation, this approach is useful as those in the same geographic area will likely experience similar risk.  Thus, communication is often directed at localities (Frandsen 2012).  Communicating to groups that they are a 'community' at risk further promotes the notion of this kind of community and reinforces the usefulness of considering community in this way for emergency management.

'Community' as problematic

If there are observable benefits, there are also important limitations to considering communities as geographical or administrative areas.  Significantly, it encourages overlooking the complexity of groups (Buckle 1999).  Communities as locations is useful for defining physical areas exposed to risk, but it is insufficient for capturing social and psychological diversity inherent within these areas and which influence patterns of associations between those residing within a location (Frandsen 2012).  Further, an individual may belong to a number of different communities that will overlap but are not necessarily coterminous.  Other types of communities may be completely removed from an individual's physical geographic location but still highly important for emergency management, such as online communities.

I posit that a disconnect exists between the emergency management industry and the general public, or the 'community'.  Observed in my experiences at least, the community is often referred to as an external entity to which emergency management is working to and not with. Community members are external to discussions and strategies that are supposedly aimed at supporting, protecting and engaging them.  I note this disconnect as problematic for the concept of 'community' as an emergency management construct as I feel for community-oriented strategies to be effective, those in emergency management need to consider themselves as part of the community, both to understand relevant local issues and to relate and engage more effectively with others in the community.  Even if we use the flawed notion of community defined by location, it is plausible many of those in emergency management do physically reside in the communities they are referring to and are thus exposed to the same risks.  Yet, often emergency management dialogue overlooks  this.

The idea that emergency management should be considered part of the community and vice versa prompts me to think of two scholarly works: 1) Blythe McLennan's work on shared responsibility, and; 2) Muki Haklay's on the levels of participation and engagement in Citizen Science projects.  On the first point, shared responsibility implies not necessarily equal responsibility, but that individuals, households, communities, state, municipal, and national agencies must all take some responsibility for managing disaster risk. However, if communities are not involved in processes of decision-making and therefore have no responsibility for determining what is important and why, how should they be expected to take responsibility for the related actions? The responsibility is 'shared' in theory, yet, in practice citizens don't have the same kind of responsibility and are supposed to do only what authoritative emergency management informs they should do. On the second point, the ladder of participation informs as citizens increase their level of involvement in projects, the benefits they receive increase simultaneously. The benefits to citizens of high-level involvement, such as problem definition and analysis of results, are greater than low-level involvement, which may involve a citizen simply volunteering their computing capacity or using their smartphone as a passive sensor. For emergency management, if community members are more greatly involved in emergency management decision making processes, they may similarly receive greater benefits and ultimately be better-placed to manage risk, prepare, respond and recover more effectively to disaster events. I guess what I'm thinking about in arguing for increased involvement of citizens in emergency management decision making with these two works is a model of inclusive governance.

But even if I'm right in suggesting inclusive governance is needed to modify the 'us and them' dialogue of emergency management and communities, and that increasing community involvement will reduce some of the ways in which the notion of  'community' is problematic, how could this be achieved in practice? Should community members be invited to participate in conference events and agency meetings? If so, who? Which people and which groups? How would that be determined and who might still be excluded? Should it be the other way around? Rather than increasing community involvement in official systems, perhaps the official systems should adapt to the community. Are these things at all measurable? Perhaps the term 'community' should be dumped altogether, if it is indeed problematic to refer to individuals that differ so much as a single, somewhat arbitrary entity. I don't have answers to these questions, and I feel this is a topic that may be obvious in theory but quite messy in practice. But it seems to me implausible to assign single common 'community' goals for varied uncommon networks of people. The way the term 'community' is used may need rethinking, particular in emergency management, or at least how emergency management works with 'communities'.

Non-traditional volunteering: VGI and bushfire preparation (AFAC/BNHCRC 2014 conference poster)

Earlier this month I was fortunate to attend the annual Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council/Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (AFAC/BNHCRC) conference in Wellington, New Zealand.  I presented a poster on some of my PhD research on the role of VGI in disaster preparation and community engagement in Tasmania, and here it is!
A PDF is available for download from the BNHCRC website. 

Some thoughts on Monocle's 2014 Quality of Life Survey

Monocle's annual Quality of Life survey for 2014 is out, so where is the best place to live in the world?  The survey considers multiple elements and measures, from the directly measurable, such as public transport quality and costs, crime and unemployment  rates, the number of book shops or museums and galleries, or the amount of rubbish recycled, sunshine hours and green space, to some perhaps less tangible, including perceptions of tolerance.  Monocle's result: Copenhagen is on top (a position it also held in 2013).  Tokyo ranked number 2 (uniquely, Japan actually has three cities in the top ten), and Melbourne is ranked number 3 - another blow to Sydney in the perpetual battle between Australia's two biggest cities for bragging rights (Sydney ranked number 11).

Many of the cities on the list will not surprise, and perhaps even more interesting, therefore, are the cities we think of as being great places to live that do not make the list.  Truly global cities such as London or New York, for example, do not appear.  In the case of London, Monocle explain that while the city may have nightlife and culture, house prices are increasingly high and issues exist around trust of law enforcement agencies.  Significantly, but not unexpectedly, no cities from Africa or Central and South America are included.  I say not unexpectedly given the parameters considered in this survey.  Brazil, for example, may have cities world-famous for nightlife and a suite of new infrastructure developments associated with the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, but notoriously high crime rates and a less than liberal attitude to same-sex marriage prevent its cities from making the Monocle list.

While I think the survey could gain more credibility by providing more information on methods and metrics, and is quite obviously flawed in a number of ways (the extreme bias of wealthier western-world views is probably the most notable. But let's be fair, who is the target market of the magazine after all?), I like this survey a lot.  I like it not particularly for the list itself, though this is interesting, but more for the concept.  The Monocle Quality of Life Survey, not unlike similar surveys, encourages me to consider what we value in cities and what actually is important for living quality.  What would make my list, and what elements would contribute to making my number 1?  What places would I exclude, and why?  Would I make similar judgements based on metrics such as crime rates, transport access, or the amount of green space?  Some of these elements are indeed very important to me, but I think my own measurements would be more personal.  My quality of life isn't just about education, healthcare, crime, sunshine etc... It's about experience.  It's about the places of meaning to me as an individual and it's about the interconnections between these places.  Many of these take time to develop and cannot be measured or mapped on paper easily.  If I think about the continual comparisons in Australia between Melbourne and Sydney (both places I have lived), on paper using Monocle's metrics I agree and would conclude Melbourne is preferable.  But if I think about it more personally, based on my experiences, my connections to place, and my own inner-felt quality of living, Sydney wins.  We don't just live in cities statically, we are a part of them, and we develop unique and highly personal relationships with them.  At present, I am in a strong, loving, committed, and enjoyable relationship with Sydney, and that's something a survey cannot measure.

For the complete list of Monocle's 25 best places to live in the world, check out this video.

CLET: Street-sign art in Florence

Recently I was in Fiesole and Firenze (Florence) in Italy for a week long summer institute on VGI and Citizen Science - the Vespucci Initiative. It was a fantastic week of learning and building relationships with excellent people whilst enjoying excellent, excellent food and wine. During my stay I noticed particular street-sign street art. My favourite kind of graffiti is that that manipulates the existing street-scape features. These street-sign stickers, by French-born artist CLET, are simple yet amusing. There are many Clet works across the Florence area and here I share just a few I managed to snap (apologies the image quality isn't great in all of them - mobile phone and poor lighting!). Enjoy.

And I even spotted some in Rome!

And in Naples!

Climate change and Tuvalu: 'garbage can anarchy' and media representations (seminar paper, 2010).

Photo and map - www.tuvaluislands.com

Tuvalu is a small reef island nation in the central Pacific, home to 11,000 Tuvaluans.  Like most low-lying, island or coastal states, Tuvalu is plagued by the threats of climate change with predicted sea-level rise (SLR) and increased storm severity and frequency potentially causing severe impacts, particularly as the island is already prone to risk of flood and storm damage.  This article does not seek to outline the predicted impacts of climate change on Tuvalu, although this may be incidental, but instead focuses on representations of the issue, particularly related to migration as a prospective solution.  Media reports on the fate of Tuvalu have increased significantly over the last two decades, but the media portrayals are not always accurate and often lack scientific support.  Climate change predictions do not always correlate to the observed impacts, and instead of addressing other social, economic, or development issues unrelated to climate change, many issues get put under the climate change umbrella, in a form of ‘garbage can anarchy’ (Connell, 2003).  These issues, along with consideration as to whether climate change really is motivation for migration for the people of Tuvalu, will be explored further below, using key papers as support of the case study. 

Tuvalu consists of 24.4 km2 located on 3 small reef islands, and 6 coral atolls, spread over 750,000 km2 (Connell, 2003). The capital, Funafuti, is becoming increasingly built-up and overcrowded, resulting in environmental stressors associated with cyclones, droughts, and flooding becoming even more challenging (Connell, 2003).  Because Tuvalu is very low-lying (average 2m above sea level), it is highly susceptible to storm and flood damage (Mortreux & Barnett, 2009).  Like most small Pacific island states, Tuvalu exhibits restricted social and economic development, with a large portion of its economy based on aid through the Tuvalu Trust Fund, and remittances from nationals working abroad in mines or as seamen on overseas fishing lines (Connell, 2003).  

The predicted impacts from climate change on Tuvalu include a lifting of the flooding zone associated with SLR, and an increase in the impacts of coastal erosion from storms (Connell, 2003).  Associated land-loss will lead to a decline in agriculture production, an increase in competition for scarce land, and reduced availability of important resources such as wood.  Erosion of fringing reefs will disturb lagoon ecology, reducing fishing potential, and damage mangrove habitats. (Connell, 2003).  Opportunities for response and adaptation to these impacts can be highly restricted in such small, fragmented, impoverished states as Tuvalu, and it is here that proposal for mass resettlement is often raised. 

Migration has a history of significance in Tuvalu; post war, for work opportunities in mines or as merchant seamen, or other remittance-based ventures in places such as New Zealand (Connell, 2003).  There are widely held assumptions that climate change will result in large scale migration from Tuvalu, but Mortreux and Barnett (2009) challenge these assumptions by identifying a multitude of variables that shape an individuals decision to migrate, including issues at the origin, destination, in-between and personal issues.  Additional stressors such as high population growth and density, low GDP, unemployment, unequal access to resources and services, and poverty should be considered as ‘push’ factors for migration alongside environmental change (Mortreux & Barnett, 2009).  Mortreux and Barnett (2009) conducted extensive field work in Funafuti in order to assess people’s risk perceptions to anticipate future possible migration movements in relation to climate change.  They found that the majority of those questioned wanted to stay, for reasons such as lifestyle, culture, and identity, and those that expressed interest in leaving the island cited reasons such as employment, opportunities, and access to services, before climate change.  Many people claimed they have not seen the affects of climate change personally and therefore don’t see it as a threat (Mortreux & Barnett, 2009).

This disparity between predicted and observed impacts is something explored by Connell (2003) also.  He reports that Australia’s National Tidal Facility stated in 2002 they are yet to see the acceleration of sea levels that climatologists have predicted.  Short term fluctuations in tidal levels have been observed, particularly in response to El Niño events that may have been accentuated by high spring tides, but this is unrelated to long term climate changes (Connell, 2003).  A considerable range of environmental and social changes have been attributed to climate change even when science says they are not related, and this, Connell (2003) states, is an example of ‘garbage can anarchy’, where new problems are grafted onto old ones and given a single cause with once isolated phenomena becoming systematically interrelated.

The media plays a crucial role in representing the issues.  The media has been used as a tool for popularizing and encouraging the idea Tuvaluans need to migrate, when they need more to focus on adaptation (Mortreux & Barnett, 2009), and has accentuated concerns over accelerated global warming and its impact (Connell, 2003).  Popular media, such as The Sydney Morning Herald and Time Magazine, have been quoted using emotive language, such as ‘sinking feeling,’ ‘vanishing worlds,’ and ‘imminent peril of paradise’, often concerning unspecified details, to try attach certainty to their reports, usually with no supporting scientific notes (Connell, 2003).  In an extreme example, Connell (2003) reports an article in the Appalachian Trailway News (2002) stated:

‘Global warming caused the waters of the Pacific Ocean to rise; drowning the country’s (Tuvalu) nine coral atolls and making its 11,000 people flee their homeland forever’

An example of unhelpful sensationalization with an absence of evidence; this is absolutely untrue.

From the above I argue there can be disparity between predicted climate change and what is observed in reality, and that at times unrelated social, environmental, or development issues are attributed to climate change.  I further argue the media adds to this by misrepresenting information, and often local fears and distant media perceptions accentuate and emphasise each other, leading to a false portrayal of the issues.  It has also been shown that for Tuvaluans at least, climate change is not necessarily a motivator for migration.

In light of these explorations, I propose there are other issues unrelated to climate change, such as overpopulation and unemployment, which presently need to be addressed. However, SLR is likely to occur in the future, and emphasis now should be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global trend to slow the rate of climate change.  Research should seek to explore methods for developing and adopting adaptive and redevelopment strategies to avoid migration and allow people to sustain existing lifestyles wherever possible.  Media representations, emotions, or politics should not overpower or replace science and reality.

References

Connell, J., (2003). Losing Ground? Tuvalu, the greenhouse effect and the garbage can. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 44(2): 89-107.

Mortreux, C. and Barnett, J., (2009). Climate change, migration and adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu. Global Environmental Change 19: 105-112.

VGI and bushfire preparation in Tasmania - Part 3

In this short post, the third in a series around my PhD fieldwork in Tasmania, I will briefly provide comment on the end of the trip and the last three communities I visited. In Tasmania I was working in collaboration with the Tasmania Fire Service to visit a number of at-risk communities and survey residents about their bushfire preparation, their use of social media and Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) technologies, and how they may or may not like to use these technologies for future fire preparations. The aim was to gain insight into the potential role of VGI for fostering community engagement and building individual resilience through connectedness in wildfire preparations, and to build an evidence base for further more detailed work work particular communities in this space. The survey results are still being returned, and my next task is to start collating results. I will endeavour to discuss some of the analyses here in the coming months.

Gladstone - a small rural town in the North East of the state.  The population here is small, and there is only one local store.  It was difficult to get a good gauge of bushfire preparation here as there really weren't many people around at the time of day I visited. I could only assume most people farm or work elsewhere. But the fire risk was clear, with the area very dry and bushland close to the perimeter of the township on all sides.

In Hadspen, a community south west of Launceston in northern Tasmania, flammable bushland approaches very closely to the township surrounds. This image was taken at the local sports and recreation grounds, which constitutes a Nearby Safer Place

These last two images both show a view across to Blackstone Heights, a community in broader Launceston characterized by numerous properties at risk positioned on slopes surrounded tightly by bush.

VGI and bushfire preparation in Tasmania - Part 2

This post continues from my previous regarding my PhD research and associated fieldwork in Tasmania where I'm looking at bushfire preparation and the potential role of volunteered geographic information. As I'm travelling around the state talking with residents in local communities and distributing questionnaires, I'm gaining a lot of insight into many issues around bushfire management and the use of various technologies, and I’ll post about some of these in the future when I've begun collating results. In doing this I've been lucky to spend time in some beautiful Australian places and the purpose of this post is to share some more pictures from my journey around the state so far.

Swansea - Dolphin Sands is a coastal area in the east coast town of Swansea. Its residents enjoy a quiet living environment surrounded by bush land a stone’s throw away from the beach. But they’re also aware of the persistent bushfire risk in the area. There is a small but active bushfire awareness group in this one-road-in community and custom made signs like the one in this picture installed by the group are a constant reminder of the fire risk in the area.

Coles Bay – A popular tourist destination and this beach at Swanwick shows a number of properties, many of which are holiday homes or part time residents, placed high in the hills surrounded by trees and bush. 

Coles Bay - Freycinet National Park is one of Tasmania’s most rugged and most beautiful coastal regions, and Wineglass Bay is a key feature.

Bicheno - Residents of this coastal town will remember fires in the area as recent as January 2013.

St Helens – This is a place with high bushfire risk in the hilly areas that back onto the bush which look over the main town surrounding Georges Bay.

St Helens - Binalong Bay beach is a truly gorgeous spot with clean white sands and paradise blue waters.

Stieglitz – This boat ramp and adjacent cleared area constitutes a Nearby Safer Place (NSP) in the community. NSPs are outlined in the Tasmania Fire ServiceCommunity Protection Plans and are suggested places of last resort that may be ‘safer’ to be during a bushfire event rather than staying at one’s home. Of course the only real ‘safe’ option would be to be prepared and leave the area early well in advance of the fire arriving, but that may not always be the case and thus NSPs are important.

VGI and bushfire preparation in Tasmania - Part 1

Last July I went back to study at the University of Sydney. I'm studying for a PhD in Geography and working with some truly excellent people. My research is centred around Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) and natural disaster management. More specifically I'm looking at the potential use of VGI technologies for fostering community engagement in bushfire preparation. This research, now supported by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC), has lead me to the beautiful state of Tasmania to work in collaboration with the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS), undertaking fieldwork in high bushfire-risk communities across the state.

Key research objectives include determining the present levels of engagement in bushfire preparation, the present levels of engagement with VGI technologies and social media, and assessing the potential role for VGI to play in building bushfire resilience through community engagement. Through surveys, questionnaires and interviews I aim to gain insight into the following research questions:

• What proportion of people currently engages in bushfire preparation?
• What proportion of people currently feels empowered about their own bushfire management?
• How do people currently engage with their community?
• How many people use social media (or other VGI sources) in the community? What tools in particular, and what for?
• How many people use or would use social media/VGI in relation to bushfire events, and in what ways?
• Is VGI considered a reliable source for bushfire management?
• How useful are VGI technologies and social media considered to be for bushfire preparation?

I hope to use this blog to discuss some of the findings of this work in the future, but for now while I am still in Tasmania carrying out the field studies I will just share a few pictures and bits along the way from all the interesting places I'm visiting for this work.

Flying over Tasmania en route to Hobart

Mount Nelson - a suburb in the south of Hobart with many properties on high terrain very close to bushland. The area was significantly impacted by the infamous 1967 fires that devastated southern Tasmania.

Tolmans Hill - a relatively new and small community next to Mount Nelson. This image shows a blackened area where a small fire occurred last week, highlighting the potential danger for people and properties living in areas like this.

Woodbridge - an area again largely impacted by bushfire in the past, Woodbridge to me seemed a highly connected community with many people actively involved in groups to engage fire preparation and local warning strategies, predominantly driven by a few 'local champions'. This photo was taken looking out over the water from the Peppermint Bay cafe.

Lachlan - a community north of Hobart characterised by properties typically with several acres of land high up in the hills close to bush. The thing that struck me in this area was the number of people living in high risk areas with only one road access. If fires were to block these access roads or damage vital infrastructure, such as wooden bridges, many people could potentially be trapped in place. Considering scenarios like this further highlights to me the importance of preparing for bushfires and having a Bushfire Survival Plan. A good plan may be to leave early, but what if you're in a situation like mentioned above and there is no way out; if you're too late to leave, what is your plan B?