Arrested Policy Development of Private Fire Shelters (Fire Bunkers) Is a Barrier to Adaptation to the Australian Bushfire Crisis
John W. Handmer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The paper is addressed to a relevant topic. The manuscript address some relevant topics such as policy, private fire shelters (PFS), stay or go, and construction standards for PFS.
2. The topic is relevant for many countries such as Australia, The USA, and Portugal. Besides Australia, in Portugal (2017), many people died because the question of "go or stay " was not clear, and when to go; thus the fire reached people on the road. These type of decision-making/policies remains unanswered.
3. The paper addresses the topic with an approach to the Australian scenario.
4. The manuscript does not have a topic named "conclusion". This reviewer does not think it is mandatory for that type of manuscript (perspectives).
5. The references are appropriate.
6. The paper has only 1 table and 1 figure. Just a detail in Figure 1, the last bracket should be closed.
7. Line 97. It should be kW.m-2.
8. Despite the relevant topic and the paper is well structured, it does not reach the contribution level for a journal quartile 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an important paper examining a key issue in bushfire safety. It is well written, structured and argued. I have a few comments and observations, which I would like the authors to consider.
P7 line 180
Given Victoria’s experience with extreme fires and fatalities – it’s not surprising that the policy development has gone furthest in Victoria. The state also has a long history of bunkers – see the report into the 1939 fires.
P8, ln 200 – yes they performed well, but in less extreme fire conditions? And the numbers are very small introducing another source of uncertainty – the problem of small numbers.
P6 - “Other places of last resort” suggests to me that property owners might identify locations and modify them to improve their suitability as refuges, which would likely fall foul of the requirement that PFS are for that purpose only?
P7, approx. line 180 – after Black Saturday, some builders and developers were including PFS as part of new houses. The government was in catch-up mode.
People died in PFS during Black Saturday but not always because of poor design. Some died from toxic gases, and some people failed to reach their shelter. In some senses the PFS standard is minimalist and it seems very likely that it would encourage a sense of security which is only justified if everything works well.
The paper asserts that the absence of a national approach across Australia is a key factor in
Inhibiting the uptake of PFS. Another view would be that Australian states and territories would still be arguing over such an approach, and much more progress is made by those that want to make progress at a state/territory level. The statement needs more evidence.
There are (many) parts of the USA where there is not mass fire evacuation – some subdivisions are built explicitly for staying and many rural areas will protect their property and not evacuate. In some of these areas evacuation would be dangerous due to the road and vegetation conditions. (Local law enforcement has also observed that many are heavily armed.) Mandatory evacuations are declared but in some states are probably not legal. The paper’s statements on this are the sort typically made, so I don’t expect them to be changed, but I wanted to raise the issue.
The liability issues raised are interesting and challenging. Governments can address these in a variety of ways if they want to, and all practicing engineers would have liability insurance for this purpose. However, this insurance is necessarily sufficient.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No additional comments.
