1. Contents

2. Executive Summary.....................................................................1

3. Introduction...................................................................................3

4. Method...........................................................................................4

4.1 Procedure...............................................................................................4

4.2 Sample....................................................................................................5

4.3 Instruments.............................................................................................6

5. Results...........................................................................................6

5.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs.....................................................................75.1.2 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign........7

5.1.3 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international visitors...........................................10

5.1.4 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating...............................14

5.1.5 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments.............15

5.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits................................................................175.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions.......................................................17

5.2.3 Communication of fire restrictions...........................................................18

5.3 National Publicity Campaign.................................................................215.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign........................................21

5.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services...................................................22

5.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign.........................................................23

5.4 General Questions................................................................................255.4.1 Other publicity initiatives for promoting fire awareness...........................25

5.4.2 The half- grapefruit sign and arson fire starts.........................................25

5.4.3 Final comments.......................................................................................26

6. Discussion...................................................................................27

6.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs...................................................................276.1.1 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign......27

6.1.2 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international visitors...........................................28

6.1.3 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating...............................30

6.1.4 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments.............32

6.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits................................................................32

I

6.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions.......................................................32

6.2.2 Communication of fire restrictions...........................................................34

6.3 National Publicity Campaign.................................................................346.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign........................................34

6.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services...................................................35

6.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign.........................................................36

7. Conclusion..................................................................................36

8. References..................................................................................41

9. Bibliography................................................................................41

Appendix...........................................................................................43

II

2. Executive Summary

A pilot trial of Canterbury fire officers was developed and undertaken to examine the messages fire authorities are seeking to convey through fire danger communication. This report details the methods, findings and recommendations of the research study. The intention is to be a summation of the interviews conducted and to inform of significant issues that arose during the study to benefit future research in fire danger communication systems. The expanded study is to be carried out under the Ensis Bushfire Research Programme (Ensis is the Joint Forces of CSIRO and Scion, formerly Forest Research).

The main findings of this report are summarised below:

Fire Danger Warning Signs

There is no clear, distinguished information on the signs to instruct the public what behaviour they should adhere to in each individual rating. Fire officers believe that the public are confused with the messages of fire ratings depicted on the signs. The fire officers themselves were unsure with what specific behaviour was allowed in relation to the signs’ rating ratings.

The ratings ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ are associated with an open fire season and that it is relatively safe for fire activity. The ratings ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ are associated with a restricted or prohibited fire season, where it is dangerous to have fire activity. There is no information on the sign to notify the public that the rating ratings are related to fire seasons.

The signs do not give clarity to the public on how they should modify their fire activity in relation to the fire rating ratings. The only messages the signs convey is that the public should be generally aware and cautious of their activities in rural environments.

Fire officers would prefer to change the arrow on the sign in relation to seasonal fluctuations in the environment. This was to insure accuracy of the sign and to answer public criticism that the signs were inaccurate or not frequently updated.

Fire Restrictions and Permits

Fire officers believe the public are confused with the differences between an open, restricted and prohibited fire season. The public were seen to have limited knowledge on what and when outdoor fire activities require a permit.

A degree of personal responsibility was expected from the public, as they were required to contact authorities to check what the fire season was and if they need a permit. It was presumed the public

1

had knowledge regarding fire activity in rural areas, despite many urban residents not having experience with fire use as a tool.

There is difficulty communicating a holistic message regarding fire restrictions and permits as there are varying rules and regulations for different rural jurisdictions.

National Publicity Campaign

The Bernie campaign is thought to be effective at educating general awareness of fire danger at a national level, and that these messages were widely recognised by the public. However, there is doubt that Bernie is effective at representing the aims of the Rural Fire Authority and that the campaign’s messages were not specific enough to generate behavioural change in the publics psyche.

The message to ‘dial 111 if you see a wildfire’ is deemed appropriate by fire officers, but they also think more emphasis needs to be on preventative, pro-active messages relating to fire danger.

The Bernie character is popular with the majority of fire officers, but there is a consciousness that the campaign needs to be monitored to see if it is reaching the intended target audiences, specifically lifestyle block owners, international visitors and urban visitors. Updating the Bernie character by redesigning the graphics and developing the meaning of the messages was of importance to retain his relevance to the audience.

By expanding this research into a nationwide study of fire officers, it will discover the intended behaviour that is expected from the public in relation to fire danger communication. This is of importance as these intended messages of what behaviour is required from the public to prevent fire outbreaks can be incorporated to develop more specific and efficient fire danger communication. A national study to examine the public’s knowledge and understanding surrounding issues that arose from the pilot study would be beneficial for the public and the National Fire Authority.

2

3. Introduction

The development and undertaking of this research study and pilot trial is intended for Ensis (the Joint Forces of CISRO and Scion), which will be developed further into a broader study of the communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand. The project is part of the Social Science Research Centre studentship during the summer of 2006/2007 at the University of Canterbury. This research is to progress from the previous year’s studentship with Ensis, which reported on international literature relating to the communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand.

To expand from last year’s studentship, and to be beneficial to the goals of the Ensis, this studentship provided a more ambitious task. The aim was to design an interview for fire officers in relation to the communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand and to undertake a pilot trial in the Canterbury region using the study design. The outcome of the study was to explore the messages that fire officers are seeking to convey with fire danger rating signs and other forms of fire danger communication. Further research would involve investigating the publics understanding of their behavioural responses in relation to these messages.

Bones (2006) reported that there was limited research and assessment regarding fire danger communication systems. A future suggestion to survey fire officers was put forward in her future recommendations. This aimed to gain perspective into what fire authorities are seeking from fire danger warning communication, and how they would want the public to behave when confronted with these messages. It was commented on that if the public obediently follows the rules and regulations relating to fire in rural jurisdictions, there should be no ignitions in restricted or prohibited areas. There would be no need for the fire danger warning sign to alert the public of how dangerous fire ignitions would be in the area, as any fire activity would be disobeying the rules and regulations initially imposed by the fire authorities and thus undermined the purpose of fire restrictions and prohibitions. Bones (2006) report concluded that it is of utmost importance to clarify the aims of the transmitter and find out exactly what the required action is. To change behaviour (in this case the actions of the public in relation to fire danger), you must take into account the aims of the transmitter (the National Rural Fire Authority), the channel (fire danger warning signs, the internet, television, radio and promotional material) and the receiver (the New Zealand public) (Mayhorn cited in Bones 2006). Previous surveys such as the 2006 New Zealand Fire Service Survey (TNS Research 2006) have investigated public awareness of fire danger rating signs, but not behaviour in relation to these signs.

This report will introduce the methods undertaken during the planning and development stages of designing the pilot trial and the process of

3

interviewing the National Rural Fire Authorities officers in the Canterbury region. The results and findings will be put forward relating to the individual sections of the interview: fire danger warning signs, fire restrictions and permits, the national publicity campaign and general questions. Later the implications of the findings that arose from the interviews will be examined in the discussion section of the report. The final section will have suggestions for fire warning communication improvements and future recommendations for research. The report is intended to be a summarisation of the interviews in the study, but also to be of benefit to the future researchers investigating this area and to those who are interested in the intended use of fire danger communication. The research pilot study has begun to tread new ground to a previously unmonitored area in national fire research.

4. Method

Ensis has encouraged the combination of forestry science and social science to investigate preventative measures against rural fire outbreaks in New Zealand. Future research under Ensis regarding the communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand will work closely using social science research methods. The purpose of this is to gain another perspective into the nature of the public and fire authorities’ behaviour and reactions regarding bushfire. The aim was to begin this study for future researchers and to record the results of the pilot trial undertaken. There are further aspirations to expand the study nationally. The research project is to contribute to the wider study by collecting and analysing the results from the research of fire officers and deputies in Canterbury.

4.1 Procedure

The essential element of this research project was that attention needed to focus on the intended message of fire danger warning communication and how effective they are at achieving the aims of the rural fire authorities. Specifically the study will look at the fire danger warning signs, which are commonly referred to as “half-grapefruit signs”. Since Ensis and the National Rural Fire Authority have adopted this term to describe the fire danger rating signs in New Zealand, “half-grapefruit” is used when describing the signs during the research project.

The hypothesis was that the fire officers would have no clear definition of what the recommended behaviour was for the half-grapefruit signs individual ratings. Public awareness of the half-grapefruit sign has previously been examined, but it is predicted that they would be unaware of how they should adapt their behaviour in relation to the signs ratings. Helens Bones’ report “Communication of Fire Danger Warnings in New

4

Zealand and Overseas” (2006) for Ensis provided the majority of relevant information. Bones’ literature review condensed the bulk of the readings from books, journals, articles and the internet so it was a manageable task to gain the background information promptly. Bones’ observation that there was limited information about the evaluation of fire communication warnings locally and internationally (2006) was correct, that there was limited research regarding fire danger communication.

Issues of importance and consistencies that continually arose were noted during the literature review. Areas the interview should concentrate on where how the public is expected to behave when the arrow is in a specific area of the half-grapefruit sign (e.g. ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’’ very high’ and ‘extreme’)? What behavioural differences are there in relation to different groups that enter a rural area (e.g. rural dwellers, urban dwellers, lifestyle block owners, recreational users and international tourists)? What behaviours are fire officers trying to modify using fire danger communication?

To incorporate the points raised into an interview, condensation of existing notes were done. The original project was to focus on the half-grapefruit signs, but from issues that had arisen, it was decided to expand the interview to have four separate sections. The interview would cover fire danger warning signs (the half-grapefruit sign), fire restrictions and permits, the national publicity campaign and general questions relating to future research. The final study design of the interview contained twenty-nine questions and the interviewing process could commence. The fire scientists at Ensis evaluated the interview questions for the intended audience.

4.2 Sample

Principal Rural Fire Officers and Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officers in the Canterbury region were the focus of the study as there had been no previous research on their perceptions of fire danger communication. Fire officers are on call providing an emergency service; they witness first hand whether the public is behaving appropriately and whether they are using the half-grapefruit sign as a reference for behaviour. They have experience of how effective current fire danger communication is and if it effects the publics behaviour in rural areas. The fire officers’ evaluation of fire danger communication systems in New Zealand should be investigated and incorporated to improve communication methods to the public. It is being assumed that the National Rural Fire Authority is trying to transmit the message of behavioural change for the safety of both property and the public. It has been suggested that there is confusion amongst the public regarding appropriate behaviour when in contact with the half-grapefruit sign and other fire danger communication in rural areas.

5

Potential participants were contacted by email, which detailed the purpose and requirements of the research project. The contacts on the list were approached to set up a suitable time and place for the interviews. The selections of participants were from urban areas and rural districts in the Canterbury region. Seven interviews of rural fire officers and deputies were conducted from a variety of locations around Canterbury to gain a geographical spread.

Ensis has worked extensively with the National Rural Fire Authorities, and it was expected that there would be a positive response from the contacts when they were asked to be an interview participant. Four of the rural based district officers and deputies gladly met for their individual interviews in the Forestry department at the University of Canterbury. The remaining three urban-based officers and deputies were interviewed in meeting rooms at the Department of Conservation, the Christchurch City Council and the National Rural Fire Authority which were in Christchurch. The length of the interviews varied from forty minutes to two hours, depending on how much the participant had to discuss on the topic. Confidentiality of the interviews meant that the privacy of names and status was ensured. All interviews were recorded on a dictaphone and then transcribed.

4.3 Instruments

Ensis sought a qualitative study of fire officers in the Canterbury region, as it was believed this would gain more insight into the topic than a traditional quantitative survey. There was consciousness that high quality results from the research were expected from the research and emphasis was not put on the quantity of interviews to gain conclusions and recommendations. The informal discussion technique of qualitative interviewing expected to uncover more in-depth realisations and personal opinions on the topic than a mass quantitative survey could achieve.

5. Results

The interviews aimed to explore not only the messages fire officers are seeking to convey through fire danger warning signs, but also other forms of fire communication and publicity. The findings have been organised in sections corresponding to the questions asked during the interview process. Fire danger warning signs (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) focuses on the half-grapefruit signs that are placed along roadsides and have the arrow pointing to the rating showing the current fire risk. Fire restrictions and permits deals with areas that are labelled as having open or prohibited fire activity. This is in relation to public notification on fire restriction signs, the newspaper and websites. The national publicity campaign (See Fig. 3) relates to the “keep it green” campaign that has

6

been running since 1992. The cartoon character, Bernie is seen in the television ad running up and down New Zealand changing arrows on half-grapefruit signs. Bernie is on all the National Rural Fire Authorities promotional media material.

5.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs

5.1.2 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign

The interviewed participants stated that the purpose of the half-grapefruit sign is to indicate to the public the associated risk or danger of a fire starting. The participants explained that the half-grapefruit sign was a tool for educating the public about fire danger and it illustrated the consequences of a fire starting in a specific rural area. The majority of responses were in alignment that the purpose and intention of the half-grapefruit sign, as expressed by two of the interviewed fire officers:

“To relate to the public the chance of a fire starting and the damage the fires can do if they do start.”

“To communicate to the local community the risk of a fire starting and what the consequences are or will be if one does start.”

Two participants thought the purpose of the half-grapefruit sign was to inform the public of the problems that authorities would face controlling fire events. The message to be conveyed to the public was believed to be what level of risk there is of a fire outbreak and the associated problems for fire authorities. Another response brought up an important issue relating to public reliance on emergency services. There was an awareness among interviewed fire officers that the public are not aware that the half-grapefruit signs also stand for how difficult it will be for fire authorities to extinguish fires. When the arrow is on extreme it means that fires can start easily and “the head fire intensity will be such that we won’t be able to put them out…I don’t think the public know that. They think that when a fire starts we will always come and save them.”

Connection of the half-grapefruit to open, restricted and prohibited fire seasons

Bones (2006) stated the general information to be conveyed by the National Rural Fire Authority using the half-grapefruit sign is that the ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ fire rating is relatively safe conditions and ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ indicates dangerous conditions. The view is that as there are prohibitions on lighting a fire through restrictions and bans can be imposed, that it is difficult to see what extra information the signs offer. If the public follows the rules and regulations set by the local fire authorities, then ideally no

7

fires should be lit in an area with restricted or banned fire activity. It would be difficult to see what extra information the half-grapefruit sign offered about ignitions, as fires would be disallowed.

The half-grapefruit sign uses a colour-coded rating system: ‘low’ (green), ‘moderate’ (blue), ‘high’ (yellow), ‘very high’ (orange) and ‘extreme’ (red) Two participants gave the following summation of the half-grapefruit sign ratings as a scale to measure fire danger: ‘It gives a relevant scale to mean basically little risk of ignition up extreme risk of ignition.’ The other participant pointed out the importance of showing the ratings low to extreme: “The fact that there is a difference between low, high and extreme so it’s sort of like a continuum thing rather than a particular meaning.” Two of the participants were concerned that the public lacked understanding of the signs rating system. ‘I know exactly what the ratings mean, but the public probably don’t.’ The other participant felt that the public were baffled with the rating system. Explaining the scientific background of the ratings would only cause further confusion:

“Personally I’ve got a few problems with the whole thing because I don’t think the public really understands the difference between say ‘high’ and ‘moderate.’ How do you know what’s ‘high’ and ‘moderate?’ … A lot of it’s to do with specific measurements that we [fire officers] understand…but the public is not going to understand all that.”

Fig.1: Fire Danger Warning Sign (Graphic from Ensis fire research photo CD).

The majority of the other participants said that the ratings ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ are intended to show that it is an open fire season. The colours represent that it is reasonably safe to light fires and that ignition rates are low. The discussion followed with the fire officers concerning the ratings in relation to open and restricted fire seasons. The theory was that the

8

majority of the public do not relate the ratings to open, restricted and prohibited fire seasons. There were two responses suggesting differing points of view on what an open and restricted fire season was. One participant said you might be able to gain permits if the rating is on ‘low’ and it is a restricted season. Another said it probably will be an open season if the rating is on ‘low’ and you do not need a permit to light a fire, depending on the region.

The majority of responses said that ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ class on the sign was intended to show that fire activity may be problematic and slightly more difficult to control than the ‘low’ class. The participants talked about the fire seasons relating to the class. It was often in non-specific terms, such as that ‘moderate’ meant that it is was ‘getting into a restricted season.’

‘Very high’ was seen as the dangerous end of the half-grapefruit sign. One participant talked about how it was at the high end of the restricted season. The public could not get this information directly from looking at the signs rating. Overall, ‘very high’ was thought to indicate that fire ignitions tended to develop quickly. It was mentioned that ‘very high’ meant that the fire authorities had a short time-frame to control fire outbreaks.

The ‘extreme’ class meant that the public would be more aware of the results of fire ignition and that there should be no fires. One participant said that the public were aware of the costs associated with fire escape. Another participant said there were fire restrictions in place when the rating was on ‘extreme’.

The fire officers thought the colour and ‘low’ to ‘extreme’ warning system was effective in informing the public of fire danger: “I think because it’s a build up sequence its quite visual, it’s likely to make people aware.” One criticism that arose was that colour was difficult to relate to levels of fire danger. When driving past the signs at high speeds, it is difficult to take in the extent of the message. Despite this one said, “What’s the alternative?” Four responded positively regarding the colour rating system, citing that the public, including international visitors understand what the colours mean: “I don’t think you could get a better colour scheme,” “Very effective going from green to bright red.” Following this, a participant said that the science behind the rating system was complex and even some fire officers do not use it all the time. Educating the public of the science behind the sign was not recommended. It was thought it would only complicate the message. It was important that the public realised the purpose of the half-grapefruit sign was to ‘show the potential for fire ignition and how quickly it could get out of control. It was thought further background information is not needed.

Frequency of half-grapefruit sign changes

9

Feedback that the fire officers received from the public often regarded the accuracy of the half-grapefruit sign. Participants have encountered criticism from the public that the sign is not updated regularly. Another public complaint was that the sign did not take into account short term fluctuations in the weather: ‘The accuracy over the short term period seems to be the biggest criticism.’ One participant agreed the publics’ doubts about the accuracy of the sign were not unfounded:

“You could have had a lot of rain and the indicator itself maybe on ‘extreme,’ and it’s been there for weeks…on some occasions they (the signs) have been left over a period of time…if we think the public is going to take any notice, they’re going to think it’s a bit of a joke.”

One participant said “The greatest one [complaint] I get is that people will be driving along the road and its pouring with rain and the arrows on ‘very high’ to ‘extreme.’” Three participants independently stated that this criticism was fair. They pointed out that it was difficult to ensure the arrow was always pointing on the correct rating at the appropriate time. The issue is that the officer discussed was that someone had to drive to the half-grapefruit signs to change the arrow. Many of the signs were in remote rural areas: “It’s a difficult thing to manage when you’ve got a number of remote signs to ensure the accuracy of information.” Relating to this, another officer commented:

“The biggest issue I’ve got with the board [half-grapefruit sign] is that it’s only effective if its updated on a regular basis…the biggest feedback that I’ve got is that if the board is not updated it makes a mockery of the board…the issue is someone has got to drive round the boards to go and unlock them.”

Lack of public understanding of restrictions and prohibitionsThe participants talked of the lack of understanding the public has of restricted and prohibited fire areas: “‘when are the fire bans coming?’” We do get a lot of people ringing up,” said one fire officer. Another said that there was a lot of confusion around Department of Conservation (DOC) areas, which have a one-kilometre margin around their fire authority. The problem is increased by the fact that there are thousands of DOC areas around the country. Some of the public would not be aware that DOC land and its one-kilometre margin has a permanent restricted fire season in place all year round. Applying for permits in a restricted season was an issue that was brought up in one of the interviews: “I get a lot of calls and queries in regards to permits. There’s some confusion over who issues fire permits.”

5.1.3 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international visitors

Rural residents, particularly farmers

10

Rural residents, particularly farmers were thought to have the greatest understanding of the messages that the half-grapefruit signs were trying to transmit. In the participant’s experience, rural residents have a greater awareness of the potential of fire danger in rural areas than urban dwellers. This was because they were thought to have been exposed to the half-grapefruit signs and fire outbreaks during the extensive time they had lived in the rural areas:

“A farmer who has lived in the district for say twenty years who will understand the signs strongly relate to the risk of fire. The longer that they’re exposed to that sign the more likely there is an available standard to follow.”

Overall, it was thought that locals in rural areas also would be more knowledgeable of fire danger. One participant thought: “The local person is probably more aware of their local conditions.” The rural community was thought to be more aware of the meaning of the half-grapefruit sign and the different ratings. Farmers were more aware of fire danger as it threatened their livelihood. An issue that arose was that farmers were more likely to use fire as a tool. Burning rubbish, tree branches and stubble burnings were examples of how rural residents could be less cautious with fire usage than their urban counterparts. Farmers were seen as more confident in using fire as a tool on their own land: “Generally the farming community has got a greater awareness of fire danger and fire behaviour and in also how to use fire as a tool.” It was accepted by most of the participants that farmers would perform burns:[farmers are] “People living in a rural environment, who traditionally might burn rubbish.” One participant looked upon farmers as a sector of the community who thought that they were “bullet proof” when using fire as a tool, but have been “caught out” when burns have got out of control. The farmers have been shocked when they have received bills for the cost of putting out the fire they ignited. The participants thought that rural residents’ attitudes were slightly blasé towards the half-grapefruit sign. This was believed to have happened over time as the sign is a permanent fixture in rural areas: “Farmers I suspect are taking it for granted, what it [the half-grapefruit sign] is saying. It’s a thing they see everyday.” Another said, “A local farmer might drive past it everyday and not take notice of it,” reinforced this theory.

Lifestyle block residentsWhen discussing lifestyle block residents it was presumed they have originally moved from an urban to rural environment where fire has not been a part of their upbringing. As a result, they lacked knowledge about the fire danger in the rural environment and experience when confronting uncontrolled outbreaks: “The bulk of lifestyle owners have probably had an upbringing where fire hasn’t been part of their normal work practice and therefore are likely to panic about it.” In relation to the half-grapefruit sign two fire officer’s said: “The lifestyle block owner will be generally less aware of what the signs mean and what it means they should do.” Another remarked, “I’m not sure that the lifestyler and urban dweller really

11

understands the significance of the various colours and what it means in terms of fire danger.” The fire authorities angle was that lifestyle block residents have a lack of experience in the land management of their properties. In one example, a fire officer reported that lifestyle block owners had planted inappropriate shelterbelts and vegetation. The problem was that this would increase flammable fuel loadings on properties and increase fire risk. Another was concerned that lifestyle block residents were unaware of the dangers of not clearing rank grass and clippings from their property. These issues can be a challenge for fire officers when educating residents’ appropriate behaviours relating to the half-grapefruit sign:

“Lifestyle block people that are moving into a rural environment have no interpretation or understanding of potential fire risks, or a limited number have because they haven’t experience a rural environment. The message we are trying to get to them is that you have to be extremely careful in the environment you’re living in.”

Urban visitors to rural areasThe behaviour expected from urban visitors to rural areas, for example holidaymakers, did not encourage as much discussion as the rural residents and lifestyle block owners had. The participants associated the behaviour of urban visitors with issues regarding fire restrictions and permits rather than the half-grapefruit sign. This maybe because activities that cause fire outbreaks amongst urban visitors are camping activities, such as campfires and outdoor cooking. More importantly, officers saw this behaviour related to permits and restrictions, rather than encouraging the public to change their behaviour and activities in relation to the half-grapefruit sign.

International visitorsThere is doubt that international visitors understand what the half-grapefruit signs mean, and as a result do not know how to regulate their fire behaviour. One response was that there was ignorance amongst international visitors as they had not seen the sign before and therefore did not know what it meant. Another said they would be aware of the presence of the sign, but not the behaviour they were expected to adhere to. This group is a large recreational user of both of rural environments and Department of Conservation lands. Reported fire outbreaks from international visitors were from activities, such as roadside campfires and burning toilet paper in the bush. A more sympathetic view from a participant suggested the possibility of further education for international visitors holidaying in rural areas:

“International guests - I think its something we haven’t addressed well in regards to giving them the information they need, maybe in the different languages they need it in and spelling out the rules for them in the appropriate place.”

12

Despite the belief of some fire officers that international visitors were unaware of the meaning of the sign, half of the participants thought that visitors from western countries would have a better understanding. Three participants said visitors from the United States, Canada and Australia would recognise the half-grapefruit sign and realise what the ratings mean: “I would expect Canadians, Americans and Australians for them at least to have recognition that its fire danger and what it actually means.” One officer did express concern about use of fire by individuals from different countries. Australia was an example, where they often have ‘extreme’ fire danger but fire is still used frequently in these conditions as a tool to reduce the amount of slash and litter in the forest, thereby reducing the ultimate fire danger.

Clarity of public understandingThe discussion turned towards to whether the fire officer’s thought the public were clear or confused with the messages they were trying to transmit with the half-grapefruit sign. Five of the participants responded that they thought the sign was clear with the messages it was trying to transmit. For those who did consider the message was clear, some still expressed doubt with how much the public understood the sign: “I don’t think they’re [the public] confused, but I don’t think we’ve given it good clarity.” This clarity considered to be how people should modify their fire use in correlation to the signs rating system. The same participant continued to say, “They understand that there is a continuum of ‘low’ to ‘extreme’ and all the way along there are fires that start easier and develop faster.” The public was considered to be unaware that the sign was also supposed to be a representation of the level of difficulty fire authorities will have putting out fires when the arrow is on a specific rating. The cost and resources associated with extinguishing fires was considered to be greater when an outbreak was in an ‘extreme’ environment rather than in ‘moderate’ environment. When discussed, the majority of participants agreed the public was unaware of this. No participants said that the sign was clear in instructing the public what behaviour they should conform to when the arrow was on a specific rating. One participant thought the half-grapefruit sign was not trying to define or instruct on specific behaviour in each of the ratings, rather its purpose was to be a general indicator of danger:

“The only message it really transmits is that when its ‘very high’ to ‘extreme.’ It will be open to public interpretation…I think that’s all the board is potentially providing. I think its drawing a long straw. ‘Because if it’s in ‘moderate’ its OK to have a brazier on the beach.’ I don’t think the board is trying to explain that to people, it’s just trying to say when the arrows in ‘very high’ to ‘extreme’ you need to be careful…In terms of consequences or issues surrounding suppression, I don’t think they would have any idea…I think there is no way the general public would have an interpretation of that or we should be necessarily trying to convey that, its to cluttered of a message.”

13

5.1.4 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating

Three participants stated that the public should be more observant of their surroundings as the arrow moves around the sign. It was hoped that the public would be more conservative with the use of fire as the arrow moved along the ratings. The participants talked about how the public should behave when they see the sign in general, rather than their individual ratings: “I think from a behavioural point of view I guess what we are hoping to achieve is awareness [of fire danger].” There lacked a clear definition of the behaviour expected from the public on each individual rating from ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and ‘extreme.’ Two participants briefly touched on the behaviour expected for each of the ratings; they associated ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ with an open fire season, where it was reasonably safe to burn. ‘High’ through to ‘extreme’ was associated with a restricted fire season; the ideal behaviour expected from the public was that they should be aware that there were fire restrictions or prohibitions in place:

“As you climb from ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ then the public needs to be aware that there are most likely some sort of restrictions in place that requires them to have permits or they aren’t allowed to do something in relation to fire and so they should seek advice from their fire authority.”

Specific activitiesThis participant then discussed his opinion, “I don’t think we’ve communicated the meaning of ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and ‘extreme’ to the public…I think the public has a really coarse awareness of it.” Another explained the need for the public to apply for a fire permit when the arrow was on ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and ‘extreme’ as the environmental changes (as notified by the different fire danger ratings) would affect the behaviour of fire. He further explained, “The public needs to be aware of those signs and if they’re indicating in that high to extreme, one thing is they shouldn’t be lighting fires without a permit.”

The participants were given examples of fires that could be lit by the public and were told to explain under what level of fire danger rating they would be allowed. There was a great variance in responses. For lighting a bonfire on the beach, three responded that they were not allowed under any of the ratings on the half-grapefruit sign. The fire officers were uncertain of what activities would be allowed in relation to the half-grapefruit signs rating system. Two replied that they may allow the lighting of a bonfire on the beach when the arrow is on ‘low’ or ‘moderate.’ Another two said it would be allowed in all of the sections of the sign, it was up to the public to monitor its safety: “It’s quite possible they’ll be allowed in all sections. It’s depending on how long the fire environment puts the fire danger into a category.” This fire officer did further explain how the public was supposed to estimate how long the arrow had been on a rating in order to make this judgement.

14

Campfires were seen as a matter related to restricted and prohibited fire seasons: “Its allowed until we put a total fire ban on,” and “It would be safe anytime that there’s not a prohibited fire season.” One participant said they were not allowed in his district, two said they should only be lit when the arrow was on the ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ section. This contrasted with another participant who said:

“At the moment its allowed under any of those ratings…people I guess believe its their right, its been done for years…As long as they’ve taken precautions, cleared an area around what they intend to burn and they put the fire out, then its not an issue.”

The mixed responses continued with the example of a thermette at a roadside picnic area. All, apart from one participant said they were allowed in all of the fire danger ratings on the sign. In contrast one participant said: “Normally thermette fires have been deemed to be fires in the open air, so restrictions apply.” Another participant said, “Even when we go to a restricted fire season it’s [the thermette] not a permitted activity.” Two participants said they were allowed in the ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ ratings of the sign. Three of the participants were not concerned with activities relating to thermettes. Another three thought they were a fire risk, and should be used with caution.

Two participants considered a brazier in a backyard acceptable in the ‘low’ to ‘high’ rating, while one thought low to moderate was appropriate. Another participant thought the individual required a permit in Department of Conservation areas, but in other districts they may have an open fire season and “generally its free burning.” Another participant said that braziers were illegal, as they are open fires. If they were on a concrete pad sheltered from strong winds, they would be “acceptable but not desirable.” Outdoor gas heaters had the most accepting response. All but one of the participants said that they would be allowed in all of the ratings on the sign. The participant, who thought that gas heaters should not be allowed in all of the ratings, said it would be allowed up to ‘high,’ possibly ‘very high.’ Gas was not seen as not being much of a threat in causing fire outbreaks: “I don’t have any problem with gas appliances…gas fires are seen as the safer option,” remarked one officer.

In summary, fire officers did not provide definitive instructions regarding what behaviour was acceptable in each of the half-grapefruit sign ratings. The examples of behaviour from the public were discussed in relation to restricted and prohibited fire seasons, rather than the half-grapefruit sign.

5.1.5 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments

The frequency of arrow changes

15

The participants were asked how frequently they changed the arrow on the half-grapefruit sign. Three responded that they changed the sign regularly, which meant in their cases from once or twice a week: “On a regular basis we change them weekly, on a Thursday prior to the weekend.” One participant stated that in areas of high intensity fire use, such as forests they should be changed daily. He was unsure if this was a reality. In contrast to this, other responses seemed to suggest a more casual attitude towards changing the arrow on the signs. No other participants stated a specific time of day that they changed the signs in their district. A popular view was that instead of implementing a specific day to change the sign, it should be moved in relation to changes in the environment. Five participants stated that environmental changes as influenced how frequently they moved the arrow: “Small fluctuations [in the season] we wouldn’t change the sign, but a rain event that depressed the fire danger for a number of days we would change the sign.” He said that the signs should be changed daily, but due to practicalities, they probably were not. The participant, who changed the sign on a specific day every week, said he would change the sign “any other time we identify that the fire environment changes dramatically.”

Fig. 2: The half – grapefruit sign in a rural environment (Graphic from Ensis fire research photo CD).

Desired frequency of arrow changesWhen asked their opinion on how frequently they think the signs should be changed, two participants said they would like to see them changed daily. Three participants thought that the signs should be changed in relation to seasonal variations in the weather: “When the conditions change to the point when we’ve had a change in the environment that will affect the fire danger for a few days.” Another remarked, “It would be nice to change them in relation to the changes in the fire environment.” The main concern

16

was that constantly changing the arrow on the sign according to fluctuations in the weather would confuse the public. One participant commented that the activity of the arrow should be a gradual shift, not just a reflection of the fire danger in a twenty four-hour period. One participant said that when the arrow is not updated in periods of abrupt weather change, it can cause the public to question the knowledge of the fire authority:

“Its frustrating to see one set on ‘high’ when you’re driving past and its pouring with rain…foreign visitors are not going to trust something that says ‘very high’ fire danger when its pouring with rain.”

Another participant agreed that the signs should be updated in relation to changes in the weather. The problem pointed out was when in seasons of ‘low’ fire danger the arrow had been on ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ for a long period. The public would begin to doubt the accuracy of the information on the sign: “People like to see the arrow moving…if people don’t see the arrow moving they tend to think that we’re not monitoring it.” One participant remarked “The biggest feedback that I’ve got is that if the board is not updated, it makes a bit of a mockery of the board. I think updating [the signs] are critical.” It was thought by another participant that the public should not witness the signs on the incorrect rating for example, when the rating is on high and the fire danger is ‘low’ and conversely they should not see the signs on ‘low’ when the fire danger is high. It was thought this would send an “extremely mixed message” to the public, and they may question the point of having the half-grapefruit sign.

5.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits

5.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions

The participants unanimously agreed that the fire restrictions and permits were aimed at the general public rather than one group. Four participants stated they were targeted at the public, while two specified they were aimed at individuals intending to burn. The remaining participant said they were aimed at the land owners within that authority or fire district.

When examining what behaviour the public should adhere to in a restricted fire area, the replies varied. There lacked consistency in the responses about how the public should behave. Recommended advice for the public and issues regarding their confusion with restricted areas and permits were discussed. Two participants replied that in a restricted fire season, there should be no fires without a permit. This was the vital piece of information regarding public behaviour. The public’s fire activities are restricted by whether they have a permit and therefore lawful permission to light a fire. The public were presumed by the participants to have previous

17

knowledge about restricted fire seasons, and therefore already know what behaviour was appropriate.

One participant commented that the public should generally act responsibly. This could be interpreted differently by the individual, who may have limited knowledge about fire restrictions compared to those who have experience with fire. Another participant hoped the public would be more aware of anything “suspicious” in the area. This was also a general instruction that was open to individual interpretation, rather than specific behaviour the public should follow. Evidence in the participant’s responses suggested that there was a certain amount of personal responsibility expected from the public. The public were expected to actively seek the information about the restricted fire season and permits by directly contacting fire authorities: “People are expected essentially to ring the fire authority and ask how we can direct them as how they are meant to behave.” The problematic issue is that fire restrictions vary in different rural districts. Three of the participants brought this up, suggesting difficulty associated with educating the public about the requirements for a restricted fire area where there was no common approach. One participant pointed out that there are different rules for different fire authorities’ rural areas. There cannot be a holistic campaign for restrictions, as there is no consistency in the rules. One comment illustrated this:

“We have a restricted fire season, but we exempt crop residual burning…the regional fire authorities have a standard set of guidelines…but don’t follow the guidelines, then you’re outside the restriction and being unlawful.”

Rules relating to restrictions and permits differ for individual rural districts. Some participants cited this as a problem. One participant said, “in some districts you don’t need a permit for a stubble fire. They could be burning without a permit technically,” and that this was “a bit of a grey area.” Another felt strongly about the differences in rules for individual rural districts: “I don’t personally agree that we should have a 365 day restriction…I think that’s taking the rights of the land user away.” He pointed out that hypothetically a fire restriction could be in place when there is snow on the ground. A fire restriction in these types of weather conditions seemed to be unnecessary. Members of the public maybe unaware that they were not allowed to light an un-permitted fire in conditions where it might seem highly unlikely that a fire would get out of control. There seems to lack a clear, concise message for the public regarding how they should behave in restricted areas. It is assumed that the public already has previous knowledge of what is required of them when entering a restricted fire area.

5.2.3 Communication of fire restrictions

There was divided opinion among the participants who made use of fire restriction signs, newspaper ads and websites. One participant thought the

18

public used all of these mediums, that visitors would listen to the radio, that most farmers have internet access and those intending to burn would look in the local newspapers. Three of the participants thought that the fire authorities themselves would use fire restriction communication such as signs, newspaper advertisements and websites to find out what the fire danger and seasons were. The remaining half predominately thought that farmers, those wishing to dispose of rubbish and lifestyle block residents would make use of fire restriction communication. It was widely thought by participants that those who already lived in the rural environment would be more aware of fire restrictions and their meaning. “Someone who uses fire more regularly than someone else as a land management tool will be more motivated to look for those sort of messages,” said one participant. He suggested farmers were the main group who would look in newspapers for public restriction notices.

When discussing forms of communication that were more effective than others in advertising restrictions, these mediums were discussed: radio, newspapers and the internet. It was clear that some participants thought that the radio was not effective at advertising restrictions and bans: “We don’t think we get a good thing with radio.” While other participants thought radio was the most effective way to get the message across, especially to rural residents. One participant commented that radio works because “everyone listens to the radio at some point in the day.” While another participant, who promoted radio advertising, commended the efforts of the Nelson region’s use of radio. They get high profile sportsmen and community figures to support their publicity campaign.

The fire authorities often put advertisements in both rural and urban newspapers regarding restrictions and fire bans. Newspaper advertising was thought to reach all audiences by the majority of the participants. Three of the responses referred to how this was the most effective tool to reach rural residents, “I think the farming community are probably more likely to read the farming news weeklies or monthlies.” Larger metropolitan newspapers and smaller rural publications advertise restricted and prohibited fire seasons. One community was used to seeing the notices about restrictions in the local newspaper. When the regular restriction notice was not put in the newspaper the local fire officer got calls from concerned public to ask if there were restrictions in place. Importance was placed by the fire officers on reaching rural residents with information about restrictions, as they were thought to be the group most likely to carry out burnings in rural areas. The participants thought the newspaper was the medium that would effectively transmit messages to rural residents:

“They tend to read the paper…they’re used to historically seeing it in there so it’s a reference point for them. I think that’s probably the best medium considering the target.”

Discussion of the internet as a medium for alerting the public of restrictions and prohibitions had a variety of conflicting thoughts. The National Rural Fire Authorities internet website details the daily fire

19

weather, season and restrictions amongst other information regarding rural fire districts in New Zealand. One participant saw this as a positive move forward in embracing the internet. The internet was seen as a fast and effective tool to transmit and receive information. The participant said he knew many farmers already utilising the NRFA’s (National Rural Fire Authority) website. Another participant also saw the internet as a medium that is rapidly being accepted by the rural community. He said that most farmers have internet access, and it is an easily available method for informing them of fire seasons. Not all participants saw the internet as the best method for reaching the public, it can limit the audience it reached. It was suggested in one interview that a recorded message on a telephone line, informing people of the local fire conditions would be better than the internet. The participant went on to say that the internet ‘has its place,’ but not at his point as it is not effective enough to reach the widely dispersed rural communities. His response was in conflict with the internet as a tool to reach the rural community:

“The web’s a tool that everyone talks about, but if you look at the average age of a farmer being fifty plus, possibly not even computer literate and certainly in a semi – remote area where dial ups required…downloading and speed time is terrible. The hope of him coming home in his lunch hour to check the fire restrictions, he’s more likely to call someone.”

It was discussed whether the public was clear or confused by the information presented in the different mediums. Four participants agreed that there was some confusion from the public regarding the messages of fire restrictions and prohibitions. Another participant commented that the biggest problem is how the National Rural Fire Authority is communicating with those living in the rural/urban interface, especially lifestyle block residents: ‘I think we’re still grappling with that.’ One participant thought the public generally understood that a restriction meant they needed a permit for fires, but they were confused about the jurisdiction boundaries: “The confusion comes in when one authority’s restricted and another is open and they don’t know what jurisdiction they’re in.” In opposition to this remark, one participant said that there was no confusion between the restricted and prohibited season, and the rural community are aware they required a permit in a restricted season. Three participants thought that a variety of mediums needed to be used to target the different groups of the public who are exposed to the rural environment. One suggestion was to have public notices in the newspapers backed up by radio campaigns. Another participant said, instead of placing ads about fire restrictions he tried to build news items out of fire events to bring the messages to the front page of newspapers. He thought that through creating news stories that reached the front page of the newspapers, the message was not lost in a fire restriction ad in the back page. One participant was pleased with the efforts of the National Rural Fire Authority, saying ‘the message is greater toady than it was ten years ago; we are getting better at informing the public on restrictions.’ Two participants were not sure if the public were confused, but were conscious that different methods need to be used in

20

the media to educate the public about restrictions and prohibitions, such a brochure drops in electricity bills and rates.

5.3 National Publicity Campaign

5.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign

The messages of the current Bernie campaign are ‘if you see smoke dial 111,’ came up in four responses. ‘General awareness,’ ‘keep it green,’ and ‘being conscious of fire danger’ were each mentioned twice. ‘Awareness of fire seasons,’ ‘safe fire use,’ ‘to get a fire permit,’ and the ‘fire danger indicator board’ were each mentioned once. The slogans of the campaign were seen as positive behavioural messages by most of the participants. It was believed that short, sharp messages which was easily absorbed and that jogged the consciousness of the public were the way to educate about fire danger. One participant said the message was aimed not just at the farming community but also the urban resident, lifestyle block owner and urban visitor. Suggestions came from several participants with improvements that could be made to the campaign: a real life campaign similar to the national drink driving campaign, or a more serious character than Bernie. In relation to the cartoon character Bernie (who is a rural fire manger depicted changing the arrows on the half-grapefruit sign) one comment was that with the availability of 3D computer animation, the graphics of the Bernie campaign need a “revamp.”

Fig. 3: New Zealand’s rural fire safety national publicity campaign. (Graphic from NZRFA website).

21

There was a varied response when fire officers were asked whether the Bernie campaign has been effective in representing the aims of the National Rural Fire Authority. Four agreed that it had been effective, that it increases the public’s awareness of fire risk, the half-grapefruit sign and general fire danger. Three doubted its effectiveness, although it was thought that Bernie and the campaign’s messages of fire awareness were widely recognised by the public. According to one participant, “I think it [the Bernie campaign] does need a redesign.” Two participants pointed out that Bernie was deemed as a national campaign by some rural fire authorities, and therefore they did not use the campaign in their publicity efforts on a regional level. Some Rural Fire Authorities had set up their own marketing campaigns more specifically targeting their local audience. The Bernie campaign was seen an informing the national public, but more information was seen to be needed to target locals in rural areas. One participant said that the promotional material was not used by many on a local level and were not very satisfied with the marketing campaign:

“A concern I have, it’s [the Bernie campaign] not always promoted by rural fire authorities in the region…some of them in the regions would rather see the money that’s going into this campaign given to the regions to see what they can do for marketing. That’s the feeling I get because I’m talking to all these rural fire authorities all the time.”

In another interview, the evidence of this claim became apparent when a participant said, “We don’t use it [the Bernie campaign]…We use our own local paper and our own media releases to the local papers.” Despite this, the Bernie campaign is still seen on national television, so his messages are being transmitted to the public at a large scale.

5.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services

The Bernie campaign’s main message has been to dial 111 “when smoke is seen.” The message has been updated to “if you see a wildfire dial 111.” The campaign emphasises public reliance on emergency services, and takes away responsibility of actions from the public or individual who may have caused the wildfire. The responsibility of cost control lies with the individual who started the fire. The majority of the participants thought the message to dial 111 was an appropriate instruction for the public; however, five had observations relating to this. Two participants commented that the message was reactive, rather than preventative. The key to stop wildfire is to prevent people lighting fires during high fire danger. The message to dial 111 was about detection, and that they needed to be more directed at prevention of fires. A participant agreed that the majority of the public are unaware that they are liable for the cost of putting out a fire. An individual who may have accidentally started a fire will be liable for the costs it takes the fire authorities to extinguish the fire. The participant remarked that incorporating financial enforcement could be used as a preventive measure in the campaign to discourage people lighting fires in fire danger areas. Another two participants said that the

22

campaign needed to be more specific, as the message to dial 111 has increased false alarm callouts for rural fire authorities:

“We’ve also got to consider the fire brigades that turn out to these things and the fact that they’re employed, that they’re leaving their place of work and that their employer is suffering...It certainly has the fire brigades running around in circles a lot of the time.”

Despite this, the same participant observed that the only downside to the message is that there are “a lot of people ringing in reporting smoke from a distance,” rather than people checking to see if it is a controlled burn, for example by a farmer. He thought the message was “not specific at all,” and merely reporting smoke from a distance can be misleading. Another participant remarked that although he appreciated it takes time and money to develop campaigns, he thought there needed to be research done on how the message can be more effectively delivered, and which groups should be targeted. The message with Bernie needed to be “streamlined” and “tidied up” from year to year. Three participants stated that the message was ‘good’ and that the campaign is getting people to dial 111, which is exactly what they wanted the public to do. One participant said that ten or even five years ago locals in the community were calling his home phone number when there was a fire outbreak. He saw the shift of the public calling a central emergency number as a positive effect from the campaign. This issue came up in a previous interview, where the participant said that there are members of the public who are still reluctant to call the emergency services:

“Our goal should be that everybody is prepared to pick up a phone and dial 111 without thinking that they are putting somebody out, either their local volunteer fire brigade or paid fire service.”

5.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign

The cartoon character Bernie was popular with the majority of participant’s. During four of the interviews, it was commonly thought that Bernie was effective as a communicator of fire safety, as he was widely recognised by the public as related to fire safety. As the Bernie character has been in the media since 1992, he was seen by the participants as a familiar character for the public to relate to fire danger. One reply was that the aim of the campaign had been to ‘instil in the public consciousness that he [Bernie] is New Zealand’s national fire symbol.’ The participants thought it was important that the public associated Bernie with the half-grapefruit sign. The participants with positive responses about the campaign thought that the Bernie character has been successful in this respect. Two participants had reservations about the Bernie character in the campaign. One participant had concerns that the message was being ‘dummed down’ by have a cartoon character as the face of the national campaign: “Cartoon characters are good for children, adults need to have something a little bit more specific.” He reasoned that people do not necessarily take a cartoon

23

character seriously and the message needs to be more realistic and “harder hitting” to influence peoples perceptions of the issue. He thought more publicity should focus on the penalties associated with accidental or intended fire outbreaks:

“People need to understand that they could be looking at billion dollars worth of losses. To me a cartoon character doesn’t convey that message...If you see someone rocking up to you with an $100,000 bill for a fire that you lit and it took $100,000 to put out, that to me is a real hard hitting message that a lot of landowners don’t understand.”

Another participant said that he had previous reservations about the Bernie character, but the National Rural Fire Authorities national survey (TNS Research 2006) had shown that the character was well recognised. The survey served as evidence to the participant that the marketing campaign and Bernie had been successful. However, he was still concerned that the character was outdated.

When fire officers where asked how much faith they had in the Bernie campaign, a more personalised response was received. Five had an opinion relating to how there could be changes with the character and campaign: “To me it’s probably run its course. I’d like to see a different approach...change the message a little bit more, to being more preventative rather than reactive.” Another participant said he did not use the campaign material and that Bernie was good on a national scale, but not specific enough on a localised level. In places like Canterbury for example, which has a higher frequency of wildfire events than other regions, some participants thought rural fire authorities had to be more specialised with local fire danger advertising. To reinforce this, another participant said they had more faith in the regional publicity efforts of the Canterbury fire authority than they did in the Bernie campaign. Another participant thought this also, saying that the campaign was good on a national level, but “very much focused on forests…the majority of funding comes from the forestry sector,” and this funding has influenced the messages of the campaign. The participant went on to say that the campaign is supported by the National Rural Fire Authority, DOC and has funding from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. This input from the sponsors changes the emphasis of the campaign, so it is more aligned with preventive fire behaviour in forests. In contrast to these opinions, one participant fully agreed that the Bernie campaign was “money well spent” as it educated the public from children to adults about the half-grapefruit on a national level. Another participant who had also seen the National Rural Fire Authorities 2006 survey (TNS Research 2006) agreed that the campaign should not be changed, as it had been run for such a long period that the public now associated Bernie with fire danger. “It would be very hard to see if there’s further improvement,” said the participant. However, he then discussed how there should be continual research on the national campaign:

24

“I think you would need to be very conscious and monitor it. Conscious and continuing to do a lot of research in terms of actually target audience cut through and the like to make sure we are validating behavioural response.”

5.4 General Questions

5.4.1 Other publicity initiatives for promoting fire awareness

Rural Fire Authorities often took other publicity initiatives to promote fire awareness. Four constructed newspaper articles for local newspapers. Three of the participants used pamphlet drops in letterboxes and rate demands: “I think the pamphlets are a good cheap way of focusing your attentions, you can put things on TV and everyone will see them, but most people it won’t apply to.” Three participants also mentioned this use of a publicity officer to directly talk to the media and inform them of regional issues relating to fire danger. They also used spokespeople to encourage media coverage of newsworthy events relating to wildfires and fire danger. One participant said that he and his local team approached individuals who had recently moved into the area and campers over the busy New Year’s period and spoke to them about the fire danger and consequences of inappropriate actions.

5.4.2 The half- grapefruit sign and arson fire starts

The discussion moved onto whether the half-grapefruit sign ratings would serve to inform and therefore encourage arson fire starts. For example when the arrow is on extreme, it could alert a potential arsonist that a fire could cause a lot of damage. Four participants disagreed that the sign would result in an increase in arson behaviour:

“No…I don’t think they’ll [the arsonists] rely on a sign to tell them that. If the grass is crunchy underfoot then they’ll know to drop a match and it will burn.”

Another remarked, “I don’t think personally that the half-grapefruit sign would contribute to arson at all…simple answer no, I don’t think it contributes.” Three of the participants did not completely agree with this view, that indeed the sign could make arsonists aware of favourable fire conditions. Two participants both said it was a “catch twenty two situation,” that when you try to educate the public to be careful in certain fire ratings, you also send a message to encourage the arsonist: “If we advertise it to much you encourage more people than you discourage.” While another participant in response said he felt that when they put news items in the newspaper it does increase the level of arson fires. He then went on to say:

25

“I suspect we would be better not to do so much publicity when its extreme and work on the fact that we’ve educated the public already than to drag the arsonists out of the woodwork.”

5.4.3 Final comments

The selection of final comments was on fire danger warning communication. One participant suggested that the message should be more specific when the fire danger rating was on ‘high’ to ‘extreme’. This may mean giving the public more information on how they should alter their behaviour when the arrow is on a certain rating. Another comment was that there were many groups that needed educating about fire danger, especially international visitors and lifestyle block residents. The involvement of local councils working in conjunction with the Rural Fire Authorities was seen as an important factor in delivering messages to the public. There was a suggestion that the Rural Fire Authority should look at developing the Bernie campaign into a “library” of concepts that could be changed. This was thought to be more beneficial than putting emphasis on using the kit of promotional material. One participant who was originally positive towards Bernie later stated, “I think we can do a lot better,” in educating the public with fire danger communication. He enthusiastically suggested the use of electronic fire danger boards, similar to the Transit New Zealand boards that had been used previously for fire warnings. The boards could be more specific to the geographical area, for example ‘extreme fire danger through the Lewis Pass-beware.’

26

6. Discussion

6.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs

6.1.1 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign

Bones (2006) stated that the main way that fire danger is communicated to the public in New Zealand is through the half-grapefruit signs. In Bones’ analysis, she considered that the issue was that the meanings of the five ratings on the sign are ambiguous on their own (2006).

The interviews of fire officers carried out and reported in sections one to five of this report revealed that as fire authorities they saw the sign as a general warning, rather than giving specific messages to the public on how they public should behave with each rating. The fire officer’s understanding of the half-grapefruit sign was that it depicts ignition rates and the associated risks of fire starts. It was perceived as a tool to educate the public about the chance of a fire starting in a specific area. The purpose of the half-grapefruit sign was considered to be to inform the public of associated problems that fire authorities face controlling fire starts, and that the costs and resources required would increase as the arrow moved up the ratings. However, only two fire officers pointed out the signs dual purpose to inform the level of risk of a wild bushfire and the associated problems this would mean for fire authorities. The half-grapefruit sign was referred to as a holistic warning system. It’s ratings were not referred to individually when fire officers were asked about the signs purpose and intention. The half-grapefruit sign was seen as a scale to indicate fire danger, an indicator board to warn the public. Two participants were concerned that the public lacked understanding of the individual rating system used on the half-grapefruit sign. This serves as evidence to support Bone’s previous statement. There were no consistent responses when the fire officers were asked to specifically define the individual ratings ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high,’ and ‘extreme.’ The majority related ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ as intending to show it was an open fire season. The problem with this is the half-grapefruit signs ratings do not show any information regarding restricted and prohibited fire seasons. Fire authorities would know that these ratings mean it was an open fire season, but there is no information on the sign to inform the public of this. This reports predicted hypothesis is that the majority of the public would be unaware that the half-grapefruit signs ratings relate to an open, restricted or prohibited fire season. The general response for the ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ ratings was that there were low ignition rates when the arrow was on these ratings and thus reasonably safe to light a fire. The

27

information seemed too general for the public to predict fire behaviour and assess the safety levels of lighting a fire. This meant it was the up to the individual to decide if it was safe to light a fire. It would be inaccurate to assume that the public would be knowledgeable enough on fire activity to decide if it was ‘reasonably safe’ or not. The half-grapefruit sign does not give enough specific information on what the conditions of fire behaviour are expected for each of the ratings. Each individual’s knowledge on fire will vary. Individual’s opinions on what rating it would be ‘reasonably safe’ to light a fire in will also differ. The fire officers thought that the ratings ‘high’ and ‘very high’ illustrated to the public that fires were easily ignitable and that fire fighters had a short time to control fire outbreaks. ‘Extreme’ was thought to show that there should be no fires lit, which would in effect be a prohibited season (also know as a fire ban). There is no information on the sign that would educate the public that ‘extreme’ meant that no fires should be lit. It was assumed that the public would know that ‘extreme’ meant a prohibited fire season and therefore would already know not to use fire. The problem is fire activity can vary for individuals, some may not know that not putting out a cigarette properly could be considered an ignitable activity, or that a brazier was considered to be an open fire.

Bones (2006) also discussed how publicity needs to be provided to ensure that the public is aware that an individual who is found responsible for an accidental or deliberately lit fire will be held liable for the cost of controlling that fire. The fire officers agreed that the public was not aware of this. They agreed that it could deter more ignitions if it was used in publicity. The participants thought there was a lack of public awareness and that the half-grapefruit sign stands for how difficult it will be for authorities to extinguish fires.

6.1.2 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international visitors

A case study was conducted in California to illustrate the behavioural differences of groups in relation to fire danger communication (Gardener et al cited in Bones 2006). In the community studied, it was found that fire danger awareness increased over the time of living in an area, especially when communities had been effected by fire. However, overtime a “dampening effect” can occur, when communities can become complacent when fire activity has not occurred for a period of time (Garderner et al cited in Bones 2006). These findings were also found in the discussions with the fire officers. Fire officers were of the opinion that rural residents, specifically farmers had the greatest understanding of what the signs meant due to their prolonged time living in the rural environment and having more experience with fire outbreaks. The rural residents (farmers) were presumed to have the greatest knowledge about fire danger in comparison to lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international visitors. Despite supposedly having greater knowledge, the fire officers thought that since the rural community constantly saw the half-grapefruit signs they had become blasé about the message of the sign. The

28

participants thought that along with knowledge of the environment comes greater confidence, and many farmers had experience in using fire as a tool. It was sometimes overconfidence and controlled burns by farmers which got out of control that had resulted in fire outbreaks. It was expected that farmers would use fire as a tool on their property. In some cases, farmers would try knowingly to burn in a restricted season without a permit. Fire officers thought that rural residents would take the half-grapefruit sign less seriously than the other groups, as they were so familiar with it.

In comparison to rural residents, the fire officers saw lifestyle block owners as having less knowledge of fire danger and understanding of fire. Lifestyle block residents were thought to have moved from predominately-urban areas into rural areas. The opinion was that lifestyle block residents had not experienced fire as frequently as rural residents had and therefore would have less understanding of the half-grapefruit sign messages. The behaviours that could cause fire outbreaks on lifestyle block properties were planting flammable vegetation, not leaving a defensible space and burning off cuts when unaware of the fire dangers rating in the area.

Issues with those already dwelling in rural land and the rural/urban interface were discussed in more depth than urban visitors and international visitors. This could be because participants pointed out that often fire outbreaks in rural areas were controlled burns that simply got out of hand. The issue was considered to be the need to deal with those already using fire as a tool on their properties than visitors to rural areas. When discussing temporary visitors to rural areas, their actions were discussed in relation to restrictions and permits rather than monitoring their behaviour in relation to the signs. The participants expressed doubt about how many international visitors understood the half-grapefruit sign and what it meant. It was thought there needed to be more specialised education targeted towards international visitors, as well as lifestyle block residents and urban visitors. A suggestion from one participant was that brochures and other media material should be put in hired vehicles, backpackers and motels in a variety of languages for international guests. Visitors from Australia, Canada and the United States were believed to have some background knowledge about the half-grapefruit sign due to similar systems in their countries. The problem is that fire behaviour in these countries can vary. The use of fire as a tool could be more widely used. As example given by a participant was in the outback where campfires were used in extremely hot conditions.

Overall, the fire officers thought the half-grapefruit sign was clear with the messages it was trying to transmit. The critique was that the public may have a different perception of what the half-grapefruit sign means. The participants pointed out the lack of public understanding of what the ratings individually mean and the lack of clarity of the half-grapefruit signs messages amongst the public. Participants agreed that the public is unaware that they will have to pay the cost of putting out a fire they may have accidentally started. The public do not know what behaviour is

29

allowed in each of the ratings of the sign, and take the sign as a general indicator of ignition rates in current weather conditions only.

The New Zealand Fire Service’s annual survey results (TNS Research 2006) reported that 83% of those surveyed have recalled seeing the half-grapefruit sign. Those who were most likely to have recalled seeing a fire danger sign were aged between 35-44 years old, be New Zealand European, own their own home and have a household income between $50,000 - $74,999 or over $75,000. This survey only illustrates that people have recalled seeing the half-grapefruit sign. There are significant groups in the national population had a low recall of the half-grapefruit sign, including urban residents in Auckland, Maori, Pacific Islanders and those aged between 25-34 years old. It did not investigate if the public knows what behaviour they are meant to adhere to with individual fire danger ratings. The New Zealand Fire Service funded the survey and therefore it is possible the TNS had no incentive to probe or ask critical questions that could make their clients message look flawed. The New Zealand Fire Service have taken the survey results as a confirmation that the half-grapefruit signs were well recognised by the public (TNS Research 2006). The public were not asked further questions regarding what behaviour they thought the sign suggested or the meaning of the signs individual ratings. There has been no research into how the public think they should behave when they see the sign on a specific rating, or to the half-grapefruit sign overall in rural areas. The group who were the most likely to recall seeing the sign is a relatively privileged group in society who are most likely have been highly educated. Many more specific groups need to be targeted on what behaviour the half-grapefruit sign is asking the public to adhere to.

6.1.3 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating

Bones (2006) stated that while it was unlikely that the half-grapefruit sign was intended for the benefit of fire officers as the signs are meant to prevent ignitions, the behaviour expected is left largely up to the observer. The interview results supported this theory, as many of the participants talked of the public confusion surrounding fire communication. The public often contacted the rural fire authorities to ask when ‘fire bans were on,’ when there is no standard allocation times for bans. The fire officers said the public were confused over the rules and regulations of an open, restricted and prohibited fire season. Experiences in dealing directly with the public confirmed that many were confused over who issued fire permits and under what conditions a fire permit would be granted. A permit can only be granted under threatening conditions, such as an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. One fire officer said that when the arrow is set on ‘high’ through to ‘extreme’ the public should not light fires without a permit. The majority of the public would be unaware that the half-grapefruit signs are related to restricted and prohibited fire seasons and the need to obtain a permit. The public would probably take the signs message in its most simplified form that the likelihood of a fire getting out of control will

30

increase as the arrow moves along the ratings. There is no information on the half-grapefruit sign about how the ratings are interconnected with the restricted or prohibited fire season. The problem with associating the half-grapefruit signs with restrictions and prohibitions is that there are separate rural jurisdictions, each having separate fire authorities, who will decide whether its is appropriate to instil a restricted or prohibited fire season. There is no standardised behaviour for each region. There is no specific time of year that a restriction or prohibition can be enforced, as it is depended on the weather. Because of this, no information appears on the sign about how individual ratings relate to restricted or prohibited season. The information is subject to seasonal changes. Permanent messages relating to how the public should behave in each rating should be communicated. Bones (2006) considered that the public were confused about how the sign relates to prohibited and restricted seasons. A fire officer emphasised that the public needed to be aware that if the rating was ‘high’ through to ‘extreme,’ that individuals should not be lighting fires without a permit. During the interviews there were comments how the public were confused how the signs related to ‘bans.’ This information is not on the half-grapefruit sign and it is difficult to see how the public would have easy access to information regarding how the sign’s ratings relate to restrictions and permits. Bones (2006) reported commented that the expected behaviour change relating to the fire danger ratings is unclear. Equating a certain amount of risk with a fire rating is not particularly useful as it is not clear what action needs to be taken. It requires people to decide what actions are associated with that risk and this can be variable (Bones 2006). The interviewed participants discussed that the public should regard the sign as a ‘general indicator’ of fire risk. The public were asked to be more observant of their activities when they see the half-grapefruit sign. No specific instructions were given on how they should adjust behaviour when the arrow was on each of the individual ratings. Being more ‘conservative’ with fire use, as suggested by a participant, is a general instruction that can be open to interpretation. There is no measure of behaviour that the public should follow for each of the individual ratings. Fire officers believed that the public have an understanding of the concept of the half-grapefruit sign, but only a basic knowledge of what the individual rating system meant. When asked to comment individually on the ratings, the fire officer’s answers were not clearly defined. If there are no definite standards of what behaviour is expected or appropriate for each of the individual ratings, the public must have great difficulty evaluating their behaviour in relation to the sign. Fire officers stated that the message they were trying to portray was that under ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ ratings it is relatively safe to have fire activity and from ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ ratings it is dangerous to have fire activity. Bones (2006) questioned that it was difficult to see what extra information the half-grapefruit signs offered apart from this. The half-grapefruit signs were generally seen in a positive light and a valuable signpost to alert the public of danger. One participant said the science behind the sign was complicated and if the public were given too much information, they would become confused. The fire officers

31

preferred short, sharp and simple forms of communication. The concern with adding extra information or changing the sign from the fire officer’s perspective was that the message might become too cluttered. A fire officer admitted that they (the Rural Fire Authority) have not communicated to the public the individual meanings of ‘low’ to ‘extreme.’

6.1.4 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments

Bones (2006) reported that the half-grapefruit signs were supposed to represent general fire conditions and not small fluctuations. Fire officers were disinclined to change the sign to ‘low’ even if it was raining heavily, because the public could think that it was an open season. This was thought to cause mistrust and confusion among some members of the public, who tended not to believe the signs if it appeared no one adjusted them regularly. In relation to this argument, the participants thought that the signs should be changed in alignment with seasonal weather fluctuations. Two fire officers thought they should be changed daily, but one did express concern over how practical this would be for fire authorities. An individual had to physically drive to the signs and unlock them. The reasoning behind updating the signs during changes in the weather was that the fire officers received public scepticism regarding the accuracy of the signs. The main feedback that the fire officers received from the public were questions of whether the signs were updated regularly. Some members of the public would then proceed to tell the fire authorities the arrow was on the incorrect rating. For example, the problem was that if the arrow was seen to be on ‘high’ to ‘extreme,’ while it had been raining for a few days the public would be critical of the information on the sign. Many fire officers agreed that this was frustrating, but it was a difficult problem to address. One participant said that they do not want to change the arrows frequently from one rating to another, as this would confuse the public. Bones (2006) commented that the sign was to show general fire conditions. To fire officers the issue of updating the sign was critical in gaining the public’s trust. The public do like to see the arrow moving on the sign to show that fire authorities are updating it. The majority of participants updated the sign a ‘few’ times a week. Some took down the signs in winter, when it was thought it was not needed due to ‘low’ fire risk. One participant encouraged the practice of taking down of the signs during winter, so they would be more effective when they appeared in the summer and autumn months under high fire danger.

32

6.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits

6.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions

The public appears to be confused over restrictions and prohibitions: what a fire ban means, how to get a permit and who issues them (Bones 2006). The responses gathered from the interviews supported Bones’ claim. Fire officers said the public were confused about fire restrictions, prohibitions and permits. Clarification of the differences between a restricted and prohibited fire season need to be communicated clearly to the public. Currently a restricted fire season is when a permit is needed to light a fire. In a prohibited season, all fire activity is banned including individuals who have a permit for a fire.

Bones’ theory (2006) that the distinctions between fire restrictions and bans are often blurred was an issue that also arose during the interviews. The Department of Conservations 365 day restriction was an example of a permanent restricted area. One participant did not agree with having permanent restrictions as he considered that this was taking the rights of land users away. Having a fire restriction in place when it was snowing did not make sense to this fire officer. There were associated problems with different rules regarding fire restricted seasons in different rural areas. One fire officer commented that some districts allow stubble fires in a restricted season without a permit, while at the same time of year another district will enforce the restriction more strongly. As previously discussed, there lacked consistency regarding the rules and regulations of restricted seasons within individual rural districts.

The advice fire officers gave the public on how they should behave in a restricted fire area were general instructions rather than meaningful preventative actions. They ranged from becoming aware of anything “suspicious” to “acting responsibly.” These generalised terms are left open to the interpretation of the individual. The public’s definition of what is ‘suspicious’ or ‘responsible’ behaviour in a restricted fire area may differ greatly from those of the fire authorities.

The evidence from the interviews suggests that fire officers expected a certain amount of personal responsibility and previous knowledge regarding fire prevention from the public. One fire officer said when in a restricted season, the public was to call the fire authorities and ask how they were meant to behave. The public was expected to do a personal assessment to determine whether they thought their intended fire needed a permit. The public would need previous knowledge of fire activity to make an informed decision. The majority of the public, especially urban visitors may not have this experience or background information to make such a potentially dangerous decision. What is defined by fire authorities as fire activity needing a permit may differ from the public’s perception of what is a substantial fire activity. To some individuals a fire they plan to light may not be seen as large enough to warrant an application for a

33

permit. If the activity is a small campfire, thermette or brazier the individual may not see this as a potential danger to the environment and not apply for a permit. Many members of the public might see applying for a permit for an open fire barbeque on a beach as being too much of a lengthy process or the event might be a spontaneous decision. There is the risk that members of the public would either not see or ignore signs and warnings of a restricted season, as they can get away with having an un-permitted fire when authorities are not present. There is no sense of unlawfulness surrounding the use of fire in a restricted season. If caught there is the potential for the public to plead ignorance about how they were unaware that there was a restriction or prohibition, due to the lack of communication about restrictions and prohibitions aimed at the public. This could be the feeling of confusion about what the definition of fire activity is and what is not allowed in a restricted, prohibited and open season.

6.2.2 Communication of fire restrictions

The fire officers thought that both the public and fire authorities used fire restriction communication signs and other publicity material. Rural residents were thought by fire officers to have more understanding of what a fire-restricted season meant than urban residents. In terms of the mediums used, the most effective medium was thought to be the more traditional methods, such as newspapers. The rural communities who used fire as a larger scale tool for burn offs were seen as a target group who would read the local newspapers and farming monthlies. The city newspapers were seen to target the general urban public. The fire officers commented that articles about fire outbreaks that were near the front of the paper were far more effective at educating the public and increasing awareness than advertisements about restrictions which were generally hidden near the rear. Fire articles were seen as the most effective way at gaining public attention. The Internet was seen as a positive move forward, being a fast and ‘up to date’ way to post information regarding current fire conditions. The problem was considered to be with accessibility to all sections of the public. Many rural families have trouble with getting connected and many farmers are not computer literate. In an urban sense, it narrows the audience to those with a higher socio-economic standard of living. International visitors and urban visitors cannot easily access the Internet when travelling.

6.3 National Publicity Campaign

6.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign

When transmitting information to the public, Bones (2006) reported how it was best to assume no technical background on the subject, but this did not mean to patronise the audience with childlike level of wording. The fire

34

officers thought that the short, sharp messages of the Bernie campaign were effective in reaching the public nationwide. The main message of the Bernie campaign was to dial 111 when wildfire is seen. One participant thought that the cartoon character of Bernie was “dumbing down” the message of fire prevention. He thought adults did not take cartoons seriously, and when a cartoon was seen in the media, it gained the attention of children, rather than the public as a whole. Opinion was divided whether Bernie effectively represented the aims of the Rural Fire Authority. Several fire officers admitted they did not use the Bernie promotional material at a regional level. The majority of participants said that the Bernie campaign was widely recognised by the public. There were many recommendations provided by the fire officers to improve the Bernie campaign. These ranged from a visual redesign annually, a more serious character and improved 3D animation to dropping Bernie for real life acting scenarios. The problem that faces the Bernie campaign is not only that it might seem outdated and appealing more to children, but that aspects of fire behaviour are only briefly touched upon. If viewers want more in-depth information, they have to actively contact the local council or do Internet searching. The reality is that this would take a certain level of motivation for individuals, and only a minority would go to the extra trouble unless they wanting to have start a large fire. Bones (2006) said that this limits the audience to those who care enough to do so, and is missing the primary target of the campaign. The primary target of the Bernie campaign is those who do not have a direct link to the land, such as visitors to rural areas. Rural landowners who had grown complacent with fire danger, and who used controlled burns on their property, were also an important group to target. The National Rural Fire Authority website gave information on which areas had an open, restricted or prohibited fire seasons, but no publicity friendly advice on how the individuals should behave in each of the ratings and how the half-grapefruit signs relate to restrictions and prohibitions.

6.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services

Bones (2006) said the main advice of the national publicity campaign was to dial 111 if smoke is seen. The message has now been changed to dial 111 if you see a wildfire. The problem associated with this message is that the public has not been educated on how to spot a wildfire, rather than a controlled burn. One fire officer was exasperated that there were so many false alarms call outs for fire authorities from people calling the emergency services without checking to see if the fire was in fact a controlled burn. For those members of the public not familiar with the rural environment and how farmers perform stubble burns, it may be difficult for them to distinguish the difference between a controlled burn and wildfire. The majority of participants thought that the message to dial 111 was appropriate for the public. Despite this, there were further comments, saying that the message was reactive and maybe a more preventative stance needs to be presented to the public. This would give the public a feeling of obligation and involvement in protecting the native bush,

35

scenery, property and lives of those who are affected by wildfire outbreaks. Bones cited Brown and Davis (1973 in Bones 2006) and their claim that some people are motivated only by the threat of punishment. This theory relates to the comment provided by one of the interviewed fire officers who suggested that the campaign should incorporate financial enforcement to discourage those who act carelessly with fire. In many of the interviews the fire officers agreed that the public were not aware that there were huge financial penalties for individuals involved even accidentally starting a fire that got out of control. It was clear from talking with the fire officers that further research needs to be done into ways the campaign can be further developed and be more effective in targeting specific groups of the public. This supported Bones’ previous claim (2006) that while the national campaign has a consistent figure that is entrenched in public memory, communication needs to target an eclectic group of people and therefore one homogenous message is limited.

6.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign

The Bernie character was popular with the majority of fire officers as the face of the national campaign. Fire officers saw Bernie positively as they believed he was ingrained in the public consciousness. Some participants expressed concern that if the campaign was changed after being successful in their opinion for many years, it would disrupt fire communication messages. However, not all the fire officers agreed that Bernie was a friendly character that brought life to the serious message. One thought Bernie was not an intellectual enough approach. He said adults would not take the campaign seriously and that a more serious approach needed to be taken to grab the attention of the public. Another fire officer had thought that the Bernie character had dated. Evidence has been given to fire officers by the New Zealand Fire Service to show that the amount of land damaged from fire outbreaks had decreased significantly over the past fifteen years. It was thought that changing the Bernie campaign would disrupt the momentum and effectiveness of the message. If the rate of wildfire outbreaks had been steady or increased, then one officer said it should be change. Currently the saying ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ summarised the feeling of over half of the fire officers interviewed. However, five fire officers thought that the messages of the campaign should be more preventative rather than the public relying on emergency services. The aim was seen to be more on preventing and educating the public on behaviour that could cause fire outbreaks. The fire officers saw the Bernie campaign as good at a national level, but they also thought more specific messages needed to be targeted at regional levels. Some authorities were already taking action and doing local promotion in their own rural areas. It was seen to be important that future research should be done to see whether the target audience was being reached. A fire officer suggested monitoring the publics’ behaviour in relation to viewing fire danger communication.

36

7. Conclusion

The pilot trial of fire officers in Canterbury provided insight into what messages fire authorities are seeking to convey with fire danger communication. The key findings from the research project were:

Fire Danger Warning Signs

The purpose of the half-grapefruit sign is to indicate the associated risk of fire danger to the public.

The signs do not give clarity on how the public should modify their behaviour in relation to the fire rating ratings. The only message the signs convey is that the public should be generally aware and cautious of their activities in rural environments.

The fire officers were aware that the public did not associate the signs ratings with how difficult it would be for authorities to control fires and the costs liable to those who deliberately or accidentally started the fire.

The fire officers themselves are not clear as to what behavioural change is appropriate for each individual rating. There was no consistency in responses when discussing examples of intended fire activity and in which rating they would be allowed.

The fire officers were confused or unaware with what behavioural activities are associated with each of the signs individual ratings.

The ratings ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ were associated with an open fire season and being relatively safe for fire activity. While ‘high,’ ‘very high,’ and ‘extreme’ were associated with a restricted or prohibited fire season and it being dangerous to have fire activity. There is no information on the sign to notify the public that the ratings are related to fire seasons.

There is no clear, distinguished information on what behaviour the half-grapefruit sign is instructing the pubic to adhere to in each of the ratings. The fire officers themselves did not know or where in doubt of what specific behaviour is allowed in relation to the signs ratings.

Rural residents were seen as having greater awareness and knowledge about fire danger. They were seen to have greater confidence with the use of fire. This over confidence can border on carelessness when restrictions are ignored or burns on property get out of control.

Lifestyle block residents along with international visitors were the two main groups who needed more education on how to behave in rural areas with fire. The fire officers targeted these groups as they have more of a permanent impact on rural environments than the transient urban visitors who may only be in the area for short periods.

There was a mixed response from the fire officers to whether the public was clear or confused with the messages that the half-grapefruit signs were trying to transmit. Some were of the opinion

37

that the messages of the half-grapefruit sign were understood by the public, while others doubted this and thought the meaning of the sign and its ratings confused the public.

The fire officers thought that the behaviour of the public in relation to when they see the half-grapefruit sign should be ‘general awareness.’ This could be seen as a vague instruction for the public to actively follow.

Fire officers thought the signs arrow should be changed according to seasonal fluctuations in weather. This was thought to gain trust from the public, who have previously criticised the accuracy of the sign and been sceptical that it is being updated by fire authorities.

There was a lot of variation from the fire officers regarding what outdoor activities would be allowed in the different ratings of the sign. This was due to personal opinion of how high a fire risk the behaviour would be considered, and the different rules for the rural districts.

Fire Restrictions and Permits

Restrictions and permits are aimed at the public, but the fire officers believed the public were confused with what an open, restricted and prohibited fire season meant and what fires were deemed as requiring a permit.

A degree of personal responsibility was expected from the public. Fire officers expected the public to contact fire authorities to check if it was an open, restricted or prohibited fire season and if fires lit required a permit. The members of the public who would consciously make this effort would be those who already have previous experience with fire. This group are not the at target audience, as fire outbreaks are more likely to occur with those members of the public who are unaware of what fire seasons are and that they may need a permit for outdoor recreational activities.

It was overlooked that the public cannot make a consciously informed decision as they lack the knowledge on what behaviour is deemed as increasing fire risk.

The problem with communicating a holistic message regarding permits, restrictions and prohibitions is that rules and regulations vary for different rural jurisdictions.

There lacks a clear, concise message for the public regarding behaviour in relation to the signs ratings and the open, restricted and prohibited fire seasons.

Newspapers were thought to be the most effective medium to communicate open, restricted and prohibited seasons. The internet was a future possibility for wider communication to the public, but it limits the potential audience to the privileged and those living in urbanised areas.

The National Publicity Campaign

38

The Bernie campaign was regarded as being effective at educating the public of general awareness in regards to fire danger at a national level. The messages were thought to be widely recognised by the public. However, there were doubts that the campaign was effective at representing the aims of the Rural Fire Authority, and the campaign’s messages were not specific or aggressive enough to generate behavioural change in the publics psyche.

Fire officers thought the main message to ‘dial 111 if you see a wildfire’ was thought to be an appropriate and important message. However, they also thought that the message was very reactive and that more emphasis needs to be on preventative messages relating to fire danger.

The Bernie campaign was thought to have been effective in achieving general awareness at a national level, but not at a regional level.

Some of the fire officers thought the Bernie character and his messages were in need of a redesign to keep him updated and relevant to today’s audience.

Bernie was a popular character with the majority of the fire officers, but some had reservations about his relevance. There was a consciousness that the campaign needs to be monitored to see if it is reaching its intended target audience. Audiences that need to be specifically targeted are lifestyle block residents, international visitors and visitors.

The fire officers suggested adjustments that could be made to the Bernie campaign, such as expanding the current campaign’s messages to being more specific and an annual redesign to keep it looking modern.

There was concern over the effects of changing the Bernie character, which was thought to be a well-established and recognised symbol of the fire authority by the fire officers.

The majority of fire officers thought the message to ‘dial 111 if you see a wildfire’ was appropriate. However, they also believed there should be more emphasis on preventative messages to the public.

Future Research

Fire mangers were positive regarding future research and suggested that there should be conscious monitoring of the half-grapefruit sign and national campaign to see if it was effective in reaching specific audiences and educating about behavioural change relating to fire activity in rural areas.

It would be of great benefit to the National Fire Authority and to the New Zealand public to expand this pilot trial into a national qualitative study of fire officers. By discovering the intended behaviour that the fire officers want from the public, results could be incorporated to develop more efficient fire danger communication methods. The half-grapefruit signs and national campaign’s simplified message could become more educational.

39

This would mean the communication would be informative for not only the public, but for the fire authorities themselves. An area for potential research could be to discover how effective the national publicity campaign is, and how the receiver of the information perceives the fire safety messages. A national study should be developed to further investigate the public’s knowledge and understanding surrounding the half-grapefruit sign, fire restrictions and the national publicity campaign. Research into the half-grapefruit signs relating to improvements on informing the public of its messages and rating system would be an important avenue for future consideration. There has been concern from Bones (2006) that it is difficult to overcome the problem of mistrust from the public regarding that the signs were updated. There needs to be more investigation into this issue, as it was clearly a matter of importance to fire officers. The sign is not meant to show fluctuations in the weather, but maybe this should be reconsidered. Either that or more information communicated in the media about how the signs ratings are updated and an explanation of the rating system. The media communications side could look at market research to discover whom the messages are currently reaching. It could then identify which groups are not receiving the message. Marketing campaigns could be developed to specifically target certain sectors of the public with conjunction with groups such as Federated Farmers.

The fire officers interviewed appreciated having the opportunity to discuss their opinions and bring up issues surrounding fire danger communication. They encouraged future research involving the public’s knowledge on the subject of fire danger. Bones (2006) suggested that a focus for research could be to analyse the differences in awareness of risk and perception between rural dwellers and those living in the urban rural interface. This could potentially uncover the different ways that residents perceive fire danger, and differing attitudes towards the fire activities. This research project was unique in that it studied the behavioural messages the half-grapefruit signs intend to convey from the perspective of the national rural fire authorities. This is the first step toward expanding the study on a national scale of an issue that has not been properly addressed. Future study should focus on improving the half-grapefruit sign and its meanings. Clarification needs to be given to the public on what behaviour is expected of them in relation to the half-grapefruit signs and other forms of fire danger communication.

40

41

8. References

Bones, Helen. (2006). Communication of Fire Danger Warnings in New Zealand and Overseas. Unpublished Social Science Research Summer Studentship Research Report, Ensis (Joint Forces of CSIRO and Scion, formerly Forest Research) and the University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

TNS Research. (2006). 2006 Fire Knowledge Survey. Prepared and published for the New Zealand fire service in September 2006, Wellington.

9. Bibliography

Internet Websites

Australian Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre. www.bushfirecrc.com, Australia: date accessed 21/11/06.

Department of Conservation. www.doc.govt.nz, New Zealand: date accessed 28/11/06.

New Zealand Natural Rural Fire Authority. www.nrfa.org.nz, New Zealand: date accessed 21/11/06, 28/11/06.

Journal Articles

American Libraries (2003). “Californian Libraries Offer Fire Recovery Assistance” (Vol 34, Issue 12).

Mayhorn, C.B. (2005). “Cognitive Aging and the Processing of Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Warnings” (Vol 6, Issue 4). Natural Hazards Review.

Wildfire Magazine (2005). “Neighbourhood Watch” (Jan/Feb).

Reports and Newsletters

Anderson, S. (year unknown). “Forest and Rural Fire Danger Rating in New Zealand”. Christchurch: Ensis.

Forest and Rural Fire Research. “Researching Rural Fire.” New Zealand.

Fogarty, L. R. (1996). Fire Technology Transfer Note: “A Summary and Status of the “Proposed Revision of Fire Danger Class Criteria of Forest

42

and Rural Areas in New Zealand,” by Martin Alexander. New Zealand Forest Research Institute.

New Zealand Forest Owners Association (2004). “Survey of Forest Owners Association Members of Aspects of Rural Fire Control.” Christchurch.

New Zealand Forest Owners Association (2004). “Summary of New Zealand Forest Owners Association Members on Aspects of Rural Fire Control.” Christchurch: New Zealand Forest Owners Association.

43

Appendix

INTERVIEW OF RURAL FIRE OFFICERS IN THE CANTERBURY REGION: 2006/2007

Introduction

Hi, thank you for allowing me to speak with you. I am a graduate student working for Ensis under a University of Canterbury summer studentship over the summer.

The aim of this project is to evaluate the message and associated behavioural changes that Rural Fire Authorities intend to convey through fire danger communication mechanisms, and the public’s understanding (both rural and urban community members) of what behavioural changes they should make in response to these messages. My task is to conduct interviews with fire officers in Canterbury, such as yourself, prior to extending the project into other regions and widening it to interview members of the public. I would like to explore with you the messages you are seeking to convey thorough fire danger warning signs in particular, but also touch on other forms of communication and fire publicity.

Confidentiality…

A. Fire Danger Warning Signs:

This section of the survey focuses on the ‘half-grapefruit’ signs dotted along roadsides that have the arrow pointing to the section showing the current fire risk:

1) What is the purpose of these fire danger warning signs?

2) What is the intention of the different ratings - low to extreme?-comment individually on each of the colours/labels on the signs: low, moderate, high, very high and extreme.

3) How should the public behave when they are aware of the fire risk indicated on a fire danger sign i.e. please can you comment on the behaviour you are asking the public to adhere to for each of the following ratings: low, moderate, high, very high and extreme.

4) Is the intended behaviour you want to see different for different groups of people? E.g.(Such as farmers on large properties, people living on smaller rural properties (such as lifestyle blocks), city dwelling New Zealanders, international visitors and recreational users.)

44

5) What behavioural differences would you expect from the groups you have already spoken about when they see a fire danger sign?

a. -rural residents, such as farmers assuming they have lived in the rural area for a long time

b. -new residents to a rural area (particularly people new to lifestyle blocks

c. -urban visitorsd. -international visitors

6) How effective do you think the colour/low to extreme warning system in informing the public of fire danger?

7) How should the public interpret the colour coded/low to extreme risk areas as in relation to actions?

1. -Please can you explain under what level of fire danger warning these fires would be allowed:

a. -bonfire on a beachb. -small campfire in the bushc. –thermette at a roadside picnic aread. – brazier in a backyarde. -outdoor gas heater

8) What feedback/questions do you get from the public regarding the messages the signs try and convey?

9) Do you think that public are clear or confused with the messages you are trying to transmit? E.g.(Please can you be specific in your answer when referring to the public i.e. indicate whether this applies to rural, urban or overseas visitors.)

10)Where are the fire danger signs placed in your area?

11)Approximately how many signs are placed in your district?

12)Do you think the locations chosen are appropriate?

13)How frequently do you change the signs when the fire danger rating changes during the fire season?

14)How frequently do you think they should be changed?

B. Fire Restrictions and Permits:

This section is dealing with areas that are labelled as having open or prohibited fire activity. This is in relation to public notification on fire restriction signs (other than the half grapefruit), the newspaper, pamphlets and websites.

1) Who are the fire restrictions and prohibitions aimed at?

45

2) Who do you think makes use of fire restriction signs (other than the half grapefruit), newspaper ads and websites? Please can you comment on each in turn.

3) Do some forms of communication work better than others for different users – e.g. is the web accessed by more farmers than newspaper ads?

4) Do you think the users of the information are clear or confused by information presented in the different mediums? Please provide examples.

5) How should individuals behave in a restricted fire area? Are there any exceptions?

-e.g. Department of Conservation land has a permanent restriction on its lands and within 1 km of their borders.-If there is a temporary ban in a restricted area.

6) Explain the issue of rural landowners and whether or not they need a permit to do tussock burns, stubble burns and rubbish fires burns on their own property under different fire danger. Should they get more privilege in gaining permits over visitors, such as campers to the area as they own the land? Only cover this if you have enough time – lower priority.

C. National Publicity Campaign:

These questions relate to the “Keep it Green” campaign that has been running since 1992. I am interested in your views on the cartoon character/rural fire officer “Bernie” who in the television ad is seen running up and down New Zealand changing arrows on the fire warning signs. The character is on all promotional media material and his voice is on radio advertisements.

1) What do you think of the “Bernie” character in his role as communicator of fire safety?

-How do you think the “Bernie” campaign targets all sectors of the public?

2) What are the current messages and attitudes, which you think are being conveyed by the Bernie campaign?

3) What is your opinion on the campaign’s emphasis on public reliance on emergency services, such as dialling 111?

4) How has the Bernie campaign been effective in representing the aims of the Rural Fire Authority and reaching the public to change behaviours towards bushfires and fire prevention?

5) How much faith do you have in the Bernie campaign?

46

D. General Questions

1) Are there any other publicity initiatives you take in promoting fire awareness?

2) Do you think that the warnings could serve to encourage malicious/arson fire starts? Please can you explain your point of view.

3) Do you want to make any further comments on any fire danger warning communication to the public?

4) Lastly, whom else would you recommend the Ensis team could talk to regarding this issue in Canterbury or nationally?

47