Public Response to Wildfire: Is the Australian “Stay and Defend or Leave Early” Approach an Option for Wildfire Management in the United States?

feasible. In addition, there is growing evidence that many homeowners do not intend to evacuate (Cohn et al. 2006, Alexander et al. 2007, Mozumder et al. 2008). These challenges have led to increased discussion of possible alternatives to evacuation such as shelter in place and the Australian strategy to “stay and defend or leave early” (SDLE) [1] (Welch 2007, Paveglio et al. 2008). Some fire departments, in areas as diverse as Painted Rocks, Montana, and Ventura County, California, have begun providing homeowners with information on what to do if they can not evacuate. Given the increased attention being paid to evacuation alternatives, we think it is time to ask two pivotal questions: (1) What do these various alternatives encompass? and (2) Are they relevant and appropriate in the US context? This article will focus on answering these two questions in relation to the Australian SDLE approach. The approach is described in the Australasian Fire Authorities Council position paper, “Community Safety and Bushfire,” which articulates “a national position that provides the doctrine and describes good practice in relation to creating and maintaining bushfiresafe communities throughout Australia” (AFAC 2005). Although in the United States shelter in place is often equated with SDLE, the two are not inherently the same. We believe that the Australian position is worthy of closer examination and that this examination needs to be systematic and any decisions about its relevance in the US context needs to be evidence based. We also believe that such an examination will identify a range of research issues that, if followed through, will benefit both countries by providing further insight into effective management of wildfire risk. There are many widely recognized similarities between United States and Australian wildfire problems. Large areas of both countries are prone to wildfire and changing demographics and land-use patterns are exposing larger and new populations to the wildfire risk. Recently, both have experienced major destructive wildfires with significant losses of life and property. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the risk of fire in both countries or at least in particular regions of each country. The significance of wildfire events is reflected in increased attention from both countries’ media, and growing political and community concern in each country has led to major inquiries, development of high-level strategies, and increased research attention to wildfire-related issues (Ellis et al. 2004, Brookings Institu-