Diagnosing the Institutional Forces Impacting Australia’s Aerial Firefighting Capability

Abstract

Climate change is resulting in more wildfires, and increasingly, there are overlapping wildfire seasons between the northern and southern hemispheres. The changing climate is especially impacting the nature of aerial firefighting. This study uses an institutional lens to analyse the resources and structures associated with aerial firefighting in Australia. A set of convergent interviews of subject matter experts surfaced the key issues that have led to the current aerial firefighting situation in Australia and showed the relationships between issues. The convergent interviewing method is used to identify the core, common issues that influence the aerial firefighting system in Australia. The results highlight how aerial firefighting suffers due to the complexities that exist between the states and from a lack of a national strategy. A lack of process standardisation, an overreliance on, often international, LATs and the lack of a coordinated mitigation approach are particularly notable specific issues. Institutional theory suggests that Australia’s aerial firefighting capability has succumbed to isomorphic pressures, with the desire for legitimacy driving ever-increasing institutionalization. To respond to the changing environment, institutional entrepreneurs will be needed to create new norms and significantly change the embedded structures.

1. Introduction

Climate change and global warming are leading to more severe wildfires [1]. For example, in Australia, 2019 was the hottest and driest year on record at that time, with maximum temperatures 2.09 °C above the 1961–1990 average [2]. The dry periods contributed to the deadly 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires. The Black Summer bushfires affected 80% of Australians, both directly and indirectly [3]. In direct terms, 33 people tragically lost their lives, over 24 million hectares were burned, and 3000 homes were destroyed. Thousands of Australians became trapped in their community, isolated without power, communications or access to goods and services [4]. Over one billion animals [3] and many highly endangered flora and fauna were lost due to the widespread fires. Official estimates of the cost of that bushfire season were over AUD 10 billion [4].

Forests are carbon sinks that assist with sustainability efforts, but the carbon can be suddenly emitted during wildfires [5]. There is also a growing recognition that wildfires may also hamper other efforts toward sustainability, such as by impacting the efficacy of solar panels as far as 1000 km away from the wildfires [6]. The smoke pollution and resulting poorer air quality from wildfires can also have health consequences, especially for outdoor workers, teachers, carers and sportspeople [7].

Today, aerial firefighting in Australia is a complex industry, overseen by state and territory emergency service organizations, the federal government and various other subsidiary organizations. Each state in Australia owns and operates its own partial aerial firefighting fleet, consisting of generally smaller aircraft, because it is not cost-effective, practical or sensible for each state to own a fleet suitable for all situations [4]. The difficulties in owning firefighting aircraft include both (1) high costs, with water bombing helicopters costing around AUD 31,000 to operate for just one day [8], and (2) the short contract duration for the Australian bushfire season [4]. The states cannot afford to have millions of dollars of assets sitting dormant for most of the year and have decided the most economical way is to not own a fully operational fleet.

Each state and territory manages their own aerial firefighting fleet, in addition to various additional aircraft that are procured and provided by the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC). The NAFC is a business unit within the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC). The NAFC’s main role is to supply and arrange a fleet of contracted and owned aerial firefighting aircraft to various states and territories. The NAFC is the managing agency that facilitates the complex task of sharing these approximately 350 aircraft between states and territories to mitigate costs. The NAFC activities include (1) sharing approximately 350 Australian-owned resources between the states, and (2) leasing a fleet of approximately 150 international aircraft on behalf of the states and territories. The NAFC is a small, facilitating unit that focuses on procuring aircraft, maintenance services, fuel, crew and insurance. However, the NAFC does not provide any operation-enabling functions, nor does the NAFC own or operate any aircraft itself. Some of the costs of operating the firefighting fleet fall to the individual state or territory leasing and operating the aircraft. The NAFC is an aggregator that acts to procure aerial firefighting services in bulk, often from overseas markets during their non-peak seasons.

Lengthening wildfire seasons [1] are leading to growing overlaps between the northern and southern hemisphere wildfire seasons, making it increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible for the NAFC to share aircraft between the states and territories that are contracted from overseas or in use in other Australian jurisdictions. The wildfire (known as a bushfire in Australia) seasons are also increasingly overlapping between states and territories within Australia, making organizing aircraft an impossible task [9]. The system of transferring aircraft has failed on multiple occasions. In 2019, the Northern Territory fire season ended two months late, meaning requests by Queensland for aircraft were not able to be met [4]. During the 2019–2020 Victorian bushfires, Victoria requested additional aircraft, but the requests were denied as these aircraft were being used in New South Wales and Queensland. Shifting wildfire seasons in conjunction with an insufficient number of aircraft is making the work of the NAFC nearly impossible.

Overlapping fire seasons around the globe will continue to have direct effects on Australia’s ability to share and receive resources [10]. In 2015–2016, Australia leased over 120 international aircraft [11], yet in 2019–2020, the NAFC sourced only 66 aircraft [4].

Although Australia has 350 Australian aircraft, Australia is entirely reliant on LATs from overseas [12], with not one owned by any Australian state or territory. LATs are extremely expensive and can account for 17.6% of total fire suppression aviation expenditure [13]. LATs are a useful aerial firefighting resource [14] and can be crucial during the initial attack phase of firefighting [15] to prevent wildfires from spreading [14]. The Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA) describes Australia’s reliance on international-based aircraft as a sovereign risk [4]. The Royal Commission into the 2019–2020 wildfires found it necessary that at least one LAT be owned by and stationed within Australia. Despite this, Australia would need approximately 40 LATs to optimally fight wildfires [14].

Furthermore, aircraft can be subject to lengthy delays when being transported to Australia because the transfers are a complex task [16]. Delays can be compounded by waiting for lengthy regulatory checks to be conducted and for essential support equipment to arrive. There are multiple examples of aircraft being delayed from arriving in Australia from the US during the 2019/2020 wildfire season due to a variety of issues [4,16].

The context above indicates that there are a complex array of issues associated with the current aerial firefighting situation in Australia. To assess and analyse the issues that are important drivers of aerial firefighting in Australia, institutional theories, ranging from the initial mechanisms of institutional theory through to institutional entrepreneurship, can be a useful theoretical lens.

Institutional Theories

Institutional theory has been defined in a variety of ways [17] but provides a framework that allows for the analysis of social and organizational phenomena, particularly the rules, practices and structures that determine actions [18]. Institutional theory attempts to explain the roots of social structure, how rules, norms and routines become established, how they are spread, and why social structures fall in and out of favour over time [19]. The institutional environment can be a stronger force than the market pressures of efficiency and profit maximization in the development of formal structures in organizations [20,21].

There are several mechanisms and forces within institutional theory that suggest why organizations exist and act in certain ways. Structures, resources and field alignment are mechanisms that can either become similar within the field or be an idea that helps organizations change. When under isomorphic pressures, the organization’s structures, resources and field alignment will become similar to others. When the organization possesses agency, it can become an institutional entrepreneur (IE), which leads to it changing its structure, resources and field alignment to be innovative and a leader in its industry.

The mechanisms within the organization are susceptible to isomorphic pressures. The mechanisms are structures, resources, and field alignment. Structures relate to how the institutional environment and its surroundings can have a noticeable impact on the formation of formal structures within an organization. The structure is a constraint on human actions, as well as a by-product of human actions [22], highlighting how institutions both shape individual practices, and these practices constitute and reproduce institutions [21]. The homogeneity of the immediate surrounding environment decreases the collaboration of the internal organizational structures [23]. However, homogeneous environments have the consequences of allowing institutional and isomorphic pressures (coercive, mimetic and normative) to have an impact on the structure of the organization.

Resources, with respect to institutional theory, refer to useful or valuable possessions. Resources are an important part of all aspects of organizations, but especially when it comes to an organization’s longevity. The potential resources and capabilities of an organization are what give them their sustained competitive advantage, and their value should never be overlooked [24]. Resources include both intangible and tangible assets, with an emphasis on not just the obvious physical resources but also the crucial mechanisms that allow for growth (such as organizational structure, skilled staff and goodwill). With aerial firefighting in Australia, resources are a key part of the entire service, from the multimillion-dollar planes to the highly specialized staff and pilots who deal with some of the worst wildfires in the world. Resources are at the forefront of aerial firefighting in Australia. Ensuring that the resources are viewed in an appropriate fashion, including the intangible assets, is crucial to improving aerial firefighting within Australia.

Fields are a broad system of structures and social positions that are interlinked between individuals and resources [21]. Field alignment refers to the way organizations and institutions project their organization within their industry or field. The traditional institutional theory explains that institutions will become more similar through isomorphism as organizations in a common field adopt the similar application of ideas, even when those ideas are inefficient [25]. Organizations are more likely to align their practices in order to seek legitimacy than to be influenced by competition [20] or the drive to maximize profit or utility [21].

The idea that organizations become homogeneous is best explained by the idea of isomorphism [20]. There are three forces of institutional isomorphism: (1) coercive isomorphism, which occurs when organizations are under pressure from other organizations and society; (2) mimetic isomorphism, which encourages imitation in times of uncertainty; and (3) normative isomorphism, which can stem from professionalization [20].

Coercive isomorphism is broadly defined as the impact of both formal and informal forces that are placed on organizations by other organizations in the external environment, meaning organizations are determined by cultural expectations in the society within which they function [20,23,26]. Coercive isomorphism suggests that external pressures can result in a lack of change within an organization.

Mimetic isomorphism refers to the tendency and frequency of institutions and businesses to adopt common approaches in tough times [27]. Mimetic isomorphism reflects the likelihood of an organization influencing another by copying specific aspects or structures because of the belief that the other organizations are better [20]. Mimetic isomorphism has had a substantial impact on the structure of the aerial firefighting system within Australia, with better-performing state systems influencing the lower-performing state’s systems.

Normative isomorphism stems from professionalization that occurs when individuals within an organization align with and conform to the norms of the professional model through selection, socialization and access to employment opportunities [28]. There are two important aspects of professionalization that create normative isomorphism within an organization, (1) professionalization through formal education and legitimation, and (2) professionalization through professional networks [20]. The first—formal education and legitimation—occurs as members of the same profession receive similar or the same training, which leads to them having similar worldviews. The second—growth and elaboration of professional networks—occurs as members of the same profession interact among themselves individually and through larger organizations built for their profession that share ideas, which will diffuse among the wider professional community [29].

Professionalization is a powerful force for normative isomorphism, where organizations led by professionals possess higher levels of normative isomorphism [30]. Professionalization is self-perpetuating, with greater levels of professionalization breeding more normative isomorphism, which in turn creates higher levels of professionalization in organizations within the field [30]. Further, managers of different organizations within a field will often consult similar external sources when given the same task and produce comparable results, propagating normative isomorphism within their respective organizations [31]. Public organizations can be particularly susceptible to normative isomorphism due to their multiple, ambiguous goals and will look to professionals for guidance [30]. Furthermore, pressure from the public may arise for a leader to be a professional with the knowledge and experience necessary to lead the organization.

Isomorphism explains how organizations end up similar, but the desire for legitimacy explains why organizations end up similar. Legitimacy is the assumption that actions are desirable or suitable within societal norms and values [32]. Legitimation is viewed as something that is right and proper [33]. Institutional theory hinges on the idea that organizations must convince the public that the organization is legitimate and therefore worthy of their support [34]. Organizations can achieve legitimacy in three ways: (1) adapt output, goals and methods to conform to current definitions of legitimacy, (2) attempt to redefine legitimacy to align with the current output, goals and methods, or (3) become linked to symbols of legitimacy [35]. The most common of these drivers of legitimacy is for organizations to adapt their current structure to conform to the current legitimate forms. Legitimation is such a powerful force that organizations will partake in social situations to understand field norms and then implement these to gain legitimacy, even if those efforts are to the detriment of functional efficiency and create incompatibilities and inconsistencies within the organization [36].

Isomorphism explains how, and legitimation explains, why organizations become similar, but agency is the first aspect of institutional theory that may work against homogenization and allow for variation and change. Agency occurs when an actor engages with and has some effect on their environment [37] possibly transforming the established institutional structures [38]. An individual’s or organization’s agency describes how influential they can be in contributing to institutional change, through innovation and strategic planning [21]. Organizations with higher levels of institutionalization will possess less agency, compared with less institutionalized organizations that will possess more agency [39,40]. The actors’ social position will also impact their agency due to their field perception and access to resources [40]. Agency does, however, seem contradictory to institutional theory. Institutional theory argues that organizations become more similar through isomorphic pressures and the desire for legitimacy, but agency is their tendency to change. The paradox of embedded agency [41] asks how organizations can be innovative and have new ideas if their actions and values are conditioned by the institutional field that they aim to change. The paradox of embedded agency has led to research into institutional entrepreneurship.

Institutional entrepreneurs (IEs) are actors (organizations or individuals) utilizing available resources to act upon a valuable opportunity [42] to either reconstruct existing institutions or construct new ones [40]. Institutional change will often find innovative practices and methods that were previously inhibited by the existing practices [43]. To be an IE, the actor must both initiate and implement changes that break institutional norms [40].

IEs can exist under two types of enabling conditions [21]: organizational enabling conditions and field-enabling conditions. Organizational enabling conditions occur when organizations exist on the margins of a field, are less institutionalized, possess more agency, and have a higher chance of forcing change [43]. These organizations on the margins are also more likely to force change if they need to take action to become more legitimate within their field.

Field-enabling conditions can lead to IE when a social jolt or crisis occurs, allowing IEs to thrive. Institutional inefficiencies, inter-institutional incompatibilities, and, in particular, non-adaptability, lead to organizations being more susceptible to institutional change. Non-adaptable organizations have deeply embedded institutional norms, and non-adaptability builds up over time, because the organization moves further away from outside social norms, leaving it vulnerable to an external shock or to crises [36]. When a crisis occurs, the crisis forces the organization into a period of upheaval, and practices that were locked in by institutional inertia become obsolete [36], causing a reflective shift in consciousness that can lead to institutional change. Institutional entrepreneurship thrives in times of upheaval, and organizations can become leaders in their field with innovative new practices that benefit them.

The aim of this study is to provide a starting point for change in the industry. The research question for this study is: what are the issues associated with aerial firefighting in Australia, in terms of the resources and structures within the industry?

2. Materials and Methods

This study seeks to surface the key issues that have led to the current aerial firefighting situation in Australia and show the relationships between those issues. Convergent interviewing is a research method that effectively and efficiently identifies a system [44,45,46].

Convergent interviewing is an interview technique first coined by Bob Dick in the 1980s and is a qualitative method that collects a broad range of information from experts and organizes that information from a systems perspective. In many contexts, convergent interviewing has been found to be highly effective in informing change [46]. Convergent interviewing involves several rounds of interviews. The interviews begin with broad, non-leading questions that become more specific and probing over time. The study was covered by ethics approval (Swinburne University of Technology, Human Research Ethics Committee Ref: 20226665–10564)

To conduct convergent interviewing, the process set out by [47] is followed. This section will explain the steps carried out to undertake the convergent interviewing.

First, a steering committee was set up to identify the problem. This resulted in a general, broad, and non-leading research question, ‘What are the issues associated with aerial firefighting in Australia?’ This question was used in all interviews. Next, 12 experts in the aerial firefighting field were selected to partake in the research.

The answer to the question “who is the most expert in this field?” determined the first interviewee. The second interviewee was determined by the answer to the question, “who is the next most expert in the field with the most different expertise possible? The listing in sequence of interviewees by level of expertise was conducted with all the interviewees until the order was generated.

After each round of interviews was conducted, the interviewers held a meeting to discuss the issues raised from their respective interviews. Issues that arose in both interviews, whether the interviewees in that round agreed or disagreed, were noted and used to develop probing questions for subsequent interviews. When both interviewees agreed on the issue, a probe question was created to determine if agreement always occurs. If interviewees did not agree on the issue, a probe question was developed to explain their differences. Issues that only arose in one interview were discounted.

The interviewers then conducted the next round of interviews, which started with the original research question, followed up by the probing questions. Once completed, the interviewers again compared notes, found similarities and the relationships between issues, and built another round of probe questions. This process continued for six rounds. Interviews ceased once no new issues were identified in two consecutive rounds of interviews.

Convergent interviewing is a highly successful technique [44,45,46] that provides three major benefits. Convergent interviewing was very quick to raise key issues, offered an efficient approach to analyse data after the interviews, and is structured to give a definite end point for when enough data has been collected [48]. Further, convergent interviewing is highly flexible, which allows the interviewees to identify all issues related to the topic, without being limited to the ideas and questions posed by the interviewer. The interviewers were careful not to influence the interviewee or show bias, as this would have impacted the result. Furthermore, the interviewers did not attempt to lead the interviewee towards a certain topic but instead waited for the interviewee to bring issues up. If the interviewee did not, then the issue was not relevant enough for discussion.

Quantitative research is assessed on its validity and reliability; however, it is not so easy to assess qualitative research (such as convergent interviewing) due to a lack of universally agreed criteria. The soundness of the convergent interviewing method used in this research can be assessed by its credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability [49].

Credibility is the level of confidence that one can have in the accuracy and truth of the results and is achieved by the interviewer understanding the interviewee’s worldview and values [50]. Additionally, discussing results with a peer, as done in CI, improves credibility [51].

Transferability is the level of applicability of findings within a different field or context [52]. To ensure transferability, interviewees were chosen who accurately represent experts in that population [49].

Dependability assesses the stability of results over time [53]. Convergent interviewing creates replicable and therefore dependable results [54] due to the detailed nature of the interview.

Confirmability involves determining if the results of the research are free from bias, personal interest and motivation [49,52]. Convergent interviewing achieves confirmable results through open-ended questions. Convergent interviewing converged in just four rounds, showing that all results are confirmable.

Convergent interviewing is a method that ensures all four measures of soundness. Undertaking several rounds of convergent interviews ensures both confirmability and dependability. Carefully selecting and managing both the interviewers and interviewees will enhance the level of credibility and transferability (as well as dependability and confirmability).

Data analysis occurs in two instances throughout this research. The first instance of data analysis occurs during the interviewing process. After each round of interviews, the collected data is analysed to create the probe questions. The analysis at this stage includes first determining its importance in the following rounds, and secondly understanding whether the issue is one that is agreed upon or disagreed upon.

The second stage of data analysis occurs with the creation of the systems model. At this stage, all of the collected data are analysed and collated. Issues that are linked are grouped together, and a causal relationship is formed through the construction of the systems model. The more prominent issues central to all issues are the largest and placed in the middle of the system. Connected to these issues is a range of more specific issues that lead to these issues. This keeps expanding until the last level of the model, which contains specific reasons why these issues occur.

Prior to conducting the research, an application was made to the Swinburne University Ethics Committee to ensure that all ethics requirements were met. All participants in the research were over 18 years of age and participated of their own accord. Interviewees were fully briefed on the requirements before deciding to participate and consenting to the interview. All responses remain confidential, and the participants are not identified in the final report.

3. Results

The research determined a number of issues associated with aerial firefighting in Australia. Both the lack of a national aerial firefighting strategy and a range of complexities between Australia’s states and territories are central to the issues that are impacting aerial firefighting efforts. The specific issues impacting aerial firefighting are a result of these two main issues. Specific issues related to the two broad, central issues are:

• Complexities between the states lead to poorly defined roles, responsibilities and authority.
• A lack of standardisation leads to poor training.
• Poor funding from the federal government, due to ineffective distribution.
• The current approach is focused on suppression (putting out wildfires) rather than mitigation (reducing the risk of wildfires before they occur).
• Australia is dependent on international aircraft to fight wildfires due to an insufficient number of aerial firefighting aircraft in Australia.

The main issues arising from the interviews are shown in the simplified systems map (Figure 1). The broader key issues are in bold and underlined. The issues related to the broader key issues are in bold. However, the systems map is not limited to stating the issues, instead, the systems map also uncovers the causes of these issues, and the effects and associations of these issues. The lack of a national approach to aerial firefighting means that each state and territory is responsible for conducting its own aerial firefighting. Although the separation gives each state and territory the autonomy to do what is best for their state, the lack of overall authority makes it extremely difficult for resources to be shared between the states and efforts to be coordinated. Fires do not stop at state lines, and many fires affect multiple states at once. Therefore, it would make sense that the states work together more effectively, which could lead to further benefits as certain states have access to better equipment and resources or may have better access to a fire due to the landscape.

A common issue that was also raised in the results was that the operational framework for responding to wildfires was different in various jurisdictions. From the results, a common theme was the different approaches to aerial firefighting suppression that exist in varying states. For example, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia operate a process known as pre-determined dispatch, whereas other jurisdictions do not.

The separation and differences between states are further complicated because the lines of authority change between the states. A certain rank in one state may give authority to make decisions and act in a certain situation; however, when wanting to discuss with interstate authorities a course of action, their peer may not be senior enough in the other state to make that decision. The inter-state differences have led to serious issues at state borders, where a team was assembled and ready to cross the border to get ahead of a fire but was denied by the authorities in the other state, as the team leader did not hold that state’s necessary authority. Evidently, such coordination issues can lead to greater levels of destruction.

Furthermore, throughout the aerial firefighting industry in Australia, poorly defined or ill-conceived roles and responsibilities have a series of adverse consequences for aerial firefighting operations. A common theme from the results relates to the rampant inefficiencies, unnecessary complexities and overall poorly defined responsibilities that have a significant negative impact on operations. These inefficiencies, which in many cases are built into the existing systems within aerial firefighting organizations across Australia, have a profound negative impact on the ability for seamless and timely operations to wildfire emergencies.

The complex nature of aerial firefighting means that thorough training requirements are required to ensure adequate standards are adhered to. However, competing jurisdictions and insufficient standards have led to vastly different training programs, standards and expectations across Australia. The research highlights how the lack of training, specifically the lack of standardised training across states and territories, has led to sub-par operational performance. This also raises concerns as to whether a safe operating environment can be maintained. The poor training is not only caused by a lack of standardisation but is also affected by the nature of aerial firefighting. There is limited staff due to the uniqueness and seasonality of the industry, which makes finding and retaining staff difficult.

Further, the research identified the lack of standardisation between states as a major issue. Despite it being a common occurrence for emergency services to be operated by individual states, aviation is a national industry. With the potential for national coverage by aerial firefighting aircraft, it could be assumed that aerial firefighting would be managed at a national level because wildfires do not stop at state lines. However, it may be surprising to find that first, aerial firefighting is managed by each state, and second, there is not one authority that coordinates the efforts between the states. The NAFC coordinates the sharing of aircraft between states but does not coordinate aerial firefighting operations.

The lack of a national strategy leads to poor funding. This issue is not necessarily a lack of overall funding, but a lack of appropriately distributed funds into effective avenues. Most funding is used to fund aircraft, which are extremely expensive, with little benefit. That is, LATs take up a large proportion of funding and hence should be expected to significantly improve aerial firefighting outcomes, yet LATs may not be effective in most situations. Funding LATs comes at the cost of funding other small, fixed wing and rotary-wing aircraft and leaves Australia dependent on international aircraft.

Australia’s aerial firefighting efforts suffer significantly due to their dependency on international aerial firefighting aircraft. The capacity of Australian-owned rotary-wing and small fixed-wing aircraft is lacking. It is difficult to own and operate the optimal number of aircraft due to the changing seasonal and yearly demands, and surge capacity is often required. Being dependent on international aircraft has worked in the past, but with overlapping fire seasons between hemispheres, large expensive aircraft such as LATs are not always available when required.

Australia relies heavily on the LATs that are funded and leased from overseas. However, these aircraft are over-relied upon and not effective in every circumstance. LATs cannot be operated at night and in high winds, both conditions where wildfires are most damaging. However, LATs do have some advantages. LATs can reach wildfires quickly and can reach mountainous areas inaccessible by ground.

Both why there is no more funding, and why the funding is distributed how it is can be explained by the role the federal government plays. Firstly, the federal government is unlikely to put more money into aerial firefighting, because, for most of the year, and often many years in a row, there is little public interest. Interest peaks when a severe fire season occurs over the summer. The federal government is democratically elected and will focus on avenues to win the support of voters; and if voters are not pushing for better funding for aerial firefighting, the government will not support it. Secondly, the poor funding distribution is caused by the federal government. The federal government offers each of the states and territories money towards their respective aerial firefighting efforts, but often with conditions. The conditions often mean that a certain amount must go towards LATs and a smaller amount to other areas. The government enforces these restrictions as it supports its agenda of a dramatic news story for the media. The states and territories are unlikely to refuse the conditional funding because otherwise they would lose the funding altogether, and so agree and use the funding as required.

Some of the results arising from the converging issues were contrary to expectations. For example, the subject of LATs is a controversial one, and the results will surprise many people, both within the industry and the general public. Most members of the public believe these aircraft are effective and critical to saving lives and properties, but the cost is inhibiting Australia from owning them. On the other hand, many within the industry believe LATs are given too much attention, are counterproductive in fighting wildfires, and exist as a media and PR stunt that the government is happy to fund. The research found a middle ground on both these opinions that may surprise both parties—LATs are effective and do have a place in aerial firefighting (albeit a specific one); however, Australia does not need more of them to improve aerial firefighting.

The detailed systems map (Figure 2) shows the macro issues that are difficult to change as well as the more specific, micro issues that often underpin the more macro issues. The systems maps also show the associations and interconnections between the issues, showing that the issues do not act alone, but rather combine to contribute to the aerial firefighting system Australia has today. For example, as discussed immediately above, specific issues such as having more aggressive bushfires and the media liking dramatic stories appear to impact the nature of federal funding for aerial firefighting.

A further key issue from Figure 1 is that the current approach appears to be focused on suppression, not mitigation. Almost all firefighting efforts around Australia focus on suppression, rather than mitigation, which is directly linked to the lack of a national strategy. The focus on suppression has a catastrophic effect on aerial firefighting and wildfire fighting efforts in general. The underlying issues regarding mitigation in Figure 2 show how the current situation is somewhat stuck on a suppression emphasis due to a variety of underlying, detailed issues.

For example, one driver for an emphasis on suppression is that not having a national strategy for aerial firefighting means that there is a lack of research on mitigation strategies and therefore aerial firefighting continues to be done how it has always been done. Little focus on mitigation strategies such as controlled burning, creates more aggressive wildfires, together resulting in a greater environmental impact and creating a more challenging environment for aerial firefighting, with less favourable outcomes.

4. Discussion

The results above highlight the main issues associated with aerial firefighting in Australia and can be analysed through an institutional lens in terms of the resources and structures within the industry. This section will first discuss how isomorphic forces can describe the current situation, followed by the mechanisms of resources and structures. These areas are then justified by the institutional desire for legitimacy. The discussion will conclude by understanding the lack of and need for agency and IEs.

Coercive isomorphism and mimetic isomorphism can explain why the aerial firefighting industry in Australia is structured the way that it is and operates the way that it does. Normative isomorphic pressures do play a role, but to a lesser extent, which became apparent when analysing the poor distribution of funding.

Australia’s focus on suppression rather than mitigation is caused and strengthened by coercive pressures, where the industry will continue operating as expected by society and the government [20,23,26]. These isomorphic pressures are particularly relevant when understanding why Australia has adopted the approach of many other countries around the world to lease international aircraft during fire seasons. It is the socially accepted norm to lease aircraft, due to the high capital costs of aircraft, and this approach is seen as more cost-efficient than every country owning their own fully operational fleet. However, there are serious issues when sharing aircraft internationally due to climate change and overlapping fire seasons.

Mimetic isomorphism explains Australia’s strong focus on using LATs. The USA and California, in particular, rely heavily on LATs for forest fire management. With Australia being a smaller economy than the USA, Australia tends to copy and adopt this LAT strategy [20,27].

Mimetic isomorphism leads to organisations in different countries imitating one another and to imitation occurring between states within Australia. Competing mimetic forces make the smaller states strive to perform at a standard beyond their capability, which exacerbates the complexities between jurisdictions and complicates the existing framework. Isomorphism reflects the likelihood of an organization influencing another by copying specific aspects or structures because of the belief that the other organizations are better [20]. When there are multiple competing strategies or processes in play, isomorphism between the states can have unintended consequences for the overall operating environment.

Isomorphic forces do not need to act alone, and often more than one can be used to explain a situation [29]. Coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism are all affecting the funding for aerial firefighting in Australia. One explanation for the poor distribution of funding is the normative isomorphic pressures Australia follows from the USA places. Wildfires are a critical emergency situation, and Australia will then look to the USA and copy their approach due to the belief that the USA’s approach is optimal (per [20,27]). In order for the federal government to copy the USA’s approach the federal government places coercive isomorphic pressures on the Australian states and territories. The federal government uses formal forces to ensure that the states and territories are under coercive isomorphism and function as expected [20,23]. In this case, functioning as expected means using the funding to fund LATs. Not only is the federal government conforming to mimetic isomorphism by doing this, but also normative isomorphism. Normative isomorphic pressures stem from the professionalization of politicians. Secondly, normative isomorphic pressures stem from the professionalization of politicians. Standing in front of a LAT, showing videos of one in action “saving the day”, and telling the media how much is being spent are all dramatic stories that, once picked up in the media, reflect favourably on the government. Many government ministers continue to push funding towards LATs, despite knowing it would be marginally unproductive and that instead, more beneficial, effective changes could be made. Normative isomorphism ensures that government ministers will fund the activities that look favourably on them. Professionalization is built through the connection of networks [20] where politicians interact and create a norm to act in ways that benefit themselves even if this is not the most beneficial for their sector [29]. Every time norms are reinforced, normative isomorphic forces strengthen, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle [30].

Coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphic pressures can help to understand how certain decisions on funding, aircraft and strategy are made, whereas the desire for legitimacy helps explain why these decisions occur and why the organization or industry is satisfied with these outcomes. The coercive isomorphic pressures that lead to Australia’s aerial firefighting industry existing as it does create legitimacy in Australia because the use of aerial firefighting aircraft is the generally accepted approach by many countries around the world. To maintain the support of the Australian public, being seen as legitimate is vital [34], and this is achieved by using an emphasis (fire suppression) that conforms to the current drivers of legitimacy [35]. Decisions for the aerial firefighting industry are often made to increase legitimacy (applying [41]). Legitimation in the case of aerial firefighting is so strong that legitimacy is being achieved to the detriment of efficiency [21,25,36]. If Australia were to change their approach, it could be seen as less legitimate, and actors would need to redefine legitimacy to once again be given public approval [35]. Australia has very little agency because it is a relatively small, highly institutionalized country [39,40] in terms of aerial firefighting.

The mimetic forces that led to Australia adopting the use of LATs just as the USA does, give Australia’s aerial firefighting industry legitimacy on an international scale. Furthermore, coercive isomorphism impacting the distribution of funding is done in order to achieve legitimacy.

Similarly, the entrenched structures and institutional practices within organizations such as the NAFC and the federal government, are often continued in the long term to maintain legitimacy in the institutional environment [34]. The structures of organizations act as a constraint on human actions [22], and constantly reproducing these actions further institutionalizes the federal government [21]. Strong institutional influences on organizational structures that continue to remain the same and create major barriers to change due to continuing to adopt the same processes as always [40]. Deeply rooted structures, coupled with isomorphic pressures set by larger countries across the world, ensure current processes remain the norm and barriers to change remain high.

Aerial firefighting is a highly institutionalized field in Australia, mostly stemming from the isomorphic pressures the industry faces and the drive for legitimacy. Being a highly institutionalization industry, organizations (in this case, the firefighting agencies of the states and territories) will possess minimal agency or lesser ability to change or vary the industry’s structure or processes [39,40]. The complex institutionalized nature of aerial firefighting organizations in Australia exacerbates the complexities that exist in multiple areas, such as training standards. Despite the knowledge that training should be improved, the individual states do not possess the agency required to transform the established institutional structures [38].

Further, smaller states such as Tasmania and South Australia suffer the most from these deep institutional roots. These smaller states suffer the most from the current approach, with the least access to resources, the most desperately needed change to improve outcomes, yet have the least amount of agency, applying [55]. Australia is in a similar position in the international aerial firefighting field, but being a smaller player than the USA, Australia has a greater need for innovation, yet possesses the least agency.

The individual states and territories are highly institutionalized in the aerial firefighting field, but appear to possess little agency, if any. Consequently, it is extremely difficult for them to implement any change to their own organization or the wider industry. There is also little stimulus for change, such as an institutional crisis, which is often effective in creating change [36].

In order to overcome the strong isomorphic pressures, and with a desire for legitimation, an institutional entrepreneur (IE) will need to enter the field. The only two organizations with any agency are the NAFC and the federal government. The NAFC does have some agency to influence the industry but does not possess enough power to make a significant change. The NAFC would need to become an IE in order to make any form of significant change.

An IE would need to make substantial changes, such as a streamlined approach between the states and introducing a mitigation strategy. Making changes requires overcoming institutional norms and isomorphic forces that dictate the entire industry [40]. The IE must be willing to push the societal norms of the state-operated system and introduce a new national strategy structure, currently inhibited by the existing structure [43]. Renewing regulatory requirements will speed up the change through coercive isomorphism. Current mimetic forces from the USA need to be overcome by no longer imitating the USA and instead using smaller aircraft and focusing on mitigation. Overcoming normative isomorphism from politicians will be difficult; however, the IE could work with aerial firefighting experts, to create a new normative isomorphism and professionalization norm.

Some initial steps preparing the way for changes may already be occurring, such as a report on the lessons learned from the Australian bushfire season of 2019–2020, which includes points regarding some of the issues above, such as options associated with having more of an emphasis on mitigation [56]. One possible set of practices emerging from such reports includes approaches to mitigation such as the intersection between indigenous, culturally appropriate (so-called) “cold” burning practices and their possible utility close to urban areas. Further, the results above can inform areas to make changes such as having more research on mitigation approaches [56] and putting more of an emphasis on sustainable forestry management [57]. Sustainably managed forestry can provide ongoing carbon sinks and open the way for new products such as mass timber that can expand the presence of carbon sinks and reduce the carbon outputs of typical construction processes [58].

Due to the deeply rooted institutionalization, the industry is highly vulnerable to a crisis, which may be beneficial for the IE that can thrive at that time [36]. The IE will need to gain legitimacy, which will require redefining legitimacy to match the new structure and actions [35]. Despite the possibility of an IE arising, it seems highly unlikely due to the decades of institutionalization within the federal government, which is highly averse to change.

The results of this study may be limited to Australia in terms of the specific details, but the approach (both the diagnostic method and the utilization of an institutional lens) may be applicable to other contexts. The diagnostic results above may help to provide a common understanding of the current issues associated with aerial firefighting in Australia, upon which changes may be informed.

5. Conclusions

Climate change is leading to a growing number of increasingly dangerous wildfires [1]. To protect the carbon sinks represented by forests that are under threat from wildfires [5] and to maintain the efficacy of solar power sources [6], which may often be located in or near hot and dry locations, more needs to be known about the systems and organizations relied on to manage these wildfires.

This study highlighted several issues, but all were based on two in particular. In Australia, aerial firefighting suffers due to the complexities that exist between the states, and from a lack of a national strategy. From these two issues, arise a range of other issues including the poor definition of roles and responsibilities, poor funding from the federal government, poor access to effective aircraft, and a focus on suppression rather than mitigation.

The analysis of these results suggests that the lack of a national approach and complexities between the states, in combination with the deeply embedded institutional norms, have contributed to the current state of aerial firefighting in Australia. Poor funding, a lack of standardisation, a dependence on international aircraft, an overreliance on LATs and the lack of a mitigation approach are the most prevalent issues. Institutional theory can be an effective tool to understand why Australia’s aerial firefighting industry is so deeply rooted in its ways, with coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism and the desire for legitimacy driving this ever-increasing institutionalization. An IE will need to break these norms and embedded structures to create serious change. Further research may wish to investigate how to build on the diagnostic approaches and information above to go about implementing the needed changes.