Risk assessment refers to the analysis of a situation concerning the establishment of the qualitative and quantitative value of risk owing to the recognition of possible threats. Quantitative risk assessment requires the determination of both the magnitude of the latent loss arising from the threat and the probability that the risk will materialize owing to the prevailing factors in relation to the potential threat. Risk assessment and planning involves the utilization of varying amount of resources depending on the nature and size of the underlying potential of the risk. Such develops the concept of acceptable risk, which refers to the risk that the community can only accommodate. The cost of implementing an effective countermeasure to such risks is always too great for the community to bear. Furthermore, vulnerability of the countermeasure always exceeds the expected loss, such compel the community to understand and tolerate the prevailing risks (Lerche & Glaesser, 2006).
An effective assessment of the risk that the fires present to the local population in the state of Victoria has helped reduce the deaths and magnitude of property damage in the event of such fires. However, the assessment compels the analysis of such factors as the climatic condition and the nature of the vegetative cover in the state. With such, the state authorities can therefore manage the settlement of the people and control the activities of the local communities with the view of reducing the activities that pose threats such as smoking and garbage burning among other uncontrolled fire during the dry months. Sensitization and preparedness helps minimize the destruction of the fires since the local population stay aware of the nature of the prevalence of the fires. Additionally, the state authorities are also therefore capable of carrying out specific measures that help minimize the risk.
Risk Assessment Matrix and Methodology
The fires vary in size thus pose varying risks to the local community. The varying magnitudes of the risks thus validate the use of a risk matrix, which makes it easier for the local authority to determine the probability of a risk, and thus map out an effective mitigation. Statistically, the size of a risk is the product of the magnitude of the risk and its severity. The harshness of a risk depends on its effects. Based on the history of the Australian fires and fires in the state of Victoria, they often present such risks as loss of lives, destruction of property, displacement and destruction of the natural landscape. Additionally, the probability of the occurrence of the risk is always high since the country has a hot and dry climate that propagates the fires (Sullivan, 2009).
The severity of the risks can therefore fall into the following classification; catastrophic, marginal, critical and negligible. Catastrophic risks refer to those that claim multiple lives and result in the displacement of many people. Critical risks may claim a few lives probably between one and ten and displace a handful people. Marginal risk may cause destruction of the natural resources but not claim any life or destroy any property. Minimal risk on the other hand refers to a risk that does not result in any form of either destruction of property or death.
The state will therefore divide its climatic condition to two such as between August to February, which are always among the hottest, and March to July, which experience short, rains thus pose minimal risks to the population. Below is a possible risk matrix for the state:
After classifying the severity of the risks as catastrophic critical marginal and negligible, the probability of such risks occurring will therefore use such coordinates as certain, likely, possible and rare. The risk matrix will thus appear as follows:
|
Negligible |
Marginal |
Critical |
Catastrophic |
| Certain |
High |
High |
Extreme |
Extreme |
| Likely |
Moderate |
High |
High |
Extreme |
| Possible |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
Extreme |
| Unlikely |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Extreme |
| Rare |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
It is however to categorize bush fires especially during the hot weather as low risk since fires are unpredictable. The spread of the fires depend on the prevailing climatic such as wind. The state government must therefore consider every fire outbreak as extreme risk thus advises as much caution from the public as possible. Such may influence the voluntary transfer of people from the high-risk areas thus minimizing the risk. The size of the risk from the fires also arise from the size of the bushes, smaller bushes present smaller risks to the neighboring population. However, the populations that neighbor larger grasslands and shrubs must exercise heightened caution such as relocation during hot climates since such are the only surest mitigation to the risks posed by the fires (Hallenbeck, 1986).
The major causes of the fires in the state include lighting, deliberate, agricultural campfires while some remain unknown. The risk of the fire outbreaks thus depend on the prevalence of the causes among which lighting leads followed by deliberate fires which unlike the lighting does not always spread over wide geographical region. Agricultural activities as farmers burn chaff in their farms is the third cause of the fires followed by campfires while some of the cause remain unknown.
Prioritizing the Risks
Prioritizing the risks will depend on both the probability and the severity of the risks. Among the determined cause of the bush fires are lighting and deliberate. This implies that the government must prepare the local population for the fires caused by nature. Unfortunately, lightning cause fires deep in the bushes leading to the consumption of wider geographical area. Such fires thus have expansive effects on the region as they result in the destruction of the flora and possible death of humans. However, since they begin deep in the bush, the government has time to sensitive their spread among the local population thus vacating the high volatile areas in time. Deliberate fires on the other hand are less common. However, since humans rarely walk into the forest to start the fires, they do so near habited areas. Such fires therefore often pose greater danger to the local communities since they burn close to the residential areas thus leaving the government with minimal time to carry out the sensitization.
The limitation of the risks thus depends on the government’s ability to determine the risks and their prevalence accurately. Apparently, lightening and deliberate fires pose the greatest risks often resulting in massive loss of human lives, property and the evident destruction of the natural resources. The extent of the fires contributes to the risks that each cause poses to the local community. The materialization of the extreme risks results in the death of people, loss of property and the destruction of the natural resources.
Quantifying Major Risks
The major risks in the state are lightening and human action, which contribute to malice. The hot climatic condition coupled with the numerous lightning in the state contributes to the fires that cause more damage. Furthermore, during such climatic conditions, the regions experienced heightened wind, which further spread the bush fires faster. The fires pose great danger to the animals living in the forest thus resulting in major conflicts between humans and the animals. The wild animals cause deaths and destruction of property as they seek cover in areas habited by humans. Additionally, the fires spread towards the areas habited by humans thus causing destruction of property and at times the loss of human lives.
Malicious human actions are yet other causes of the bush fires that cause great danger to humans since such fires burn close to the areas habited by humans. In quantifying the potential risks and their prevalence, one evaluates the underlying threats, which may facilitate the materialization of such risks. The two potential risks thus are lighting and human actions. Campfires, cigarettes and agriculture are all human actions. The consideration of such thus makes human actions the greatest risk only that some of the actions are deliberate while others are accidental. From the analysis of the risks as done above, the government can therefore formulate effective policies that to help anticipate and minimize the effects of such bush fires as the Black Saturday bushfire.
References
- Hallenbeck, W. H. (1986). Quantitative risk assessment for environmental and occupational health. Chelsea, Mich.: Lewis Publishers.
- Lerche, I. & Glaesser, W. (2006). Environmental risk assessment : quantitative measures,anthropogenic influences, human impact. Berlin: Springer.
- Matthews, H. (2011). Karridale Bush Fires 1961. Karridale: Progress Association Inc.O’Brien, M. (2002). Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Springer.
- Sullivan, R. (2009). Hot and dry Australia sees wildfire danger rise. Sydney: The Association Press.
