Abstract

Confronted with an imminent bushfire threat, Australian householders can respond by evacuating, waiting to see what the bushfire does before deciding, or remaining to defend property from the fire. This decision-making is central to householders’ survival because late evacuation has been associated with fatalities. North Americans who seek alternatives to mandatory evacuation from wildfires are confronted with similar choices.

Lindell and Perry’s Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) has been extensively used to analyse the behaviour and decision-making of people subject to threat from a wide range of hazards and has acquired the status of a theory of hazard decision-making. It has not been widely used for the study of hazards in Australia. This paper addresses the question of how the PADM can be applied to the analysis of behaviour in Australian bushfires and North American wildfire, and whether the model requires adjusting for effective use in a context where householders choose their protective response rather than having decisions made for them.

The paper addresses Australian bushfire policy, which emphasises the dangers of staying to defend during extreme fire weather conditions and promotes leaving early as the safer option but allows householders to decide whether to ‘stay or go’ during a bushfire. This Australian policy approach impacts key elements of the PADM, most importantly how long-run hazard adjustments, preparatory, mitigating and equipping actions, effect the perception of evacuating or remaining. The paper concludes that the PADM should be modified to reflect the complexity of choice confronting Australian bushfire prone householders and North Americans considering alternatives to mandatory evacuation.