Investments in Fire Management: Does Saving Lives Cost Lives?

Ashe, Brian; Oliveira, Felipe Dimer de; McAneney, John

doi:10.22459/ag.19.02.2012.09

Cited by 14 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ashe et al . () had previously attempted to quantify the cost of uncontrolled fires through a relatively narrow application of economic theory. This approach conflated bushfires with other structural fires and used a simplistic index of their economic impacts – mortality caused by fire.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bushfires, Human Health Economics, and Pyrogeography

Bowman

Johnston

2014

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bushfires (landscape fires) are a key Earth system process that affects humans and our societies and economies. In a recent article, we explored the coupling of humans to landscape fire through the lens of human health impacts of bushfire smoke. We noted that such an approach demands recognition of the indirect impacts and costs of bushfires that cannot be captured by simplistic proxies such as deaths directly attributable to a fire front. Evaluation of direct and indirect economic costs of bushfire disasters, and bushfire fire management remains a poorly developed research frontier that demands collaboration of expertise from a broad cross‐section of fields that often have limited experience of collaborating together. The need for such synthetic thinking about fire's place on Earth has spawned the discipline of pyrogeography.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a generalisation and the failure to consider the indirect health impacts of fires prompted us to question Ashe et al . 's () approach and their posit that the optimal amount of expenditure on fire prevention in Australia would be less than the current investment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bushfires, Human Health Economics, and Pyrogeography

Bowman

Johnston

2014

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, given the clear evidence of harm and the direct experience of many people with chronic lung disease, denying the importance of smoke exposure as a health hazard undermines rather than bolsters public confidence in planned burning programmes. Such an approach also feeds into the economic rationalist argument that bushfires are of negligible importance as a cause of mortality and morbidity (Ashe et al ., ).…”

Section: Fire Management the Health Trade‐offsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It is surprising then that the public health impacts of smoke events are rarely considered when the social and economic impacts of bushfires are assessed (Rittmaster et al ., ; Kochi et al ., ). For example, applying the known impacts of bushfire smoke on mortality to Australian bushfire smoke pollution episodes would result in an estimated death rate approximately ten times higher than the annual average of 14 calculated for direct bushfire‐related deaths (Ashe et al ., ; Johnston et al ., ). Yet this low estimate of mortality informed the basis of an argument that the opportunity costs of investing in fire prevention activities might exceed the ‘benefits’ – in an economic modelling exercise that totally disregarded the large public health impacts of bushfire smoke pollution (Ashe et al ., ).…”

Section: Human Costsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bushfire Smoke: An Exemplar of Coupled Human and Natural Systems

Johnston

Bowman

2013

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon‐based microscopic particles have provided a crucial line of evidence in understanding the coupling between humans and fires. Through the sedimentary record, they have informed our understandings of the patterns of climate and humans on fire activity through time. The extent of contemporary atmospheric biomass burning emissions has become apparent through satellite monitoring, motivated by concerns about the effect on the climate system. Sophisticated monitoring techniques designed to monitor industrial pollution have provided a data stream useful to determine the impacts on human health of wildfire smoke: we review this rapidly expanding field. The key findings are that biomass smoke is quantitatively and qualitatively different from urban air pollution and that there is no ‘safe’ level of biomass smoke exposure. Managing fires and smoke impacts will become increasingly challenging as the climate continues to warm and demands understanding the trade‐off between wildfire and planned burns. The health impacts from severe smoke events are substantial when large populations are affected resulting in measurable increases in illness, hospital admissions, and deaths. The health impacts are not evenly distributed, and large segments of the population fall into higher risk groups. People in these categories are also likely to be adversely affected by the comparatively minor episodes of pollution generated by smaller planned burns. Planned burns thus need active programmes of public communication and air quality monitoring to ensure that the overall public health benefits of the intervention can be achieved with the minimum possible adverse impacts on higher risk individuals.

show abstract

“…At the most confronting level, a decision-maker may need to ask how many people will die because the government spent money to reduce bushfire hazards (e.g. Ashe et al, 2012), for example, rather than providing more diagnostic equipment in hospitals. As Gittins (2015) observes, 'the moral of opportunity cost is: since you can't have everything, choose carefully'.…”

Section: Genmentioning

confidence: 99%