As thousands of people across eastern Australia continue to deal with the aftermath of the devastating flooding in Queensland and Northern New South Wales earlier this year, there’s no forgetting the critical role played by volunteers in the clean-up and rescue efforts.
This ‘all hands on deck’ response to natural disasters is not a foreign concept here in Australia; in the 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires, more than 277,000 12-hour shifts were undertaken by volunteers in New South Wales alone.
This huge number begs the question; could our rescue agencies survive without the help of everyday citizens? According to new research led by The University of New England’s Dr Andrea Wallace, probably not.
“When we think back to the NSW bush fires during 2019/20, many people risked their lives volunteering in the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) to protect their neighbours and their community,” says Dr Wallace, a lecturer in the UNE Business School.
“Their altruism ensured our safety; in non-metropolitan Australia, volunteers are essential for the safety and resilience of our communities.”
When a government organisation relies on outside individuals and volunteers, it’s an example of co-production, which is an operational model used by agencies such as the RFS, the State Emergency Service (SES) or the Driver Reviver Scheme.
In her research, Dr Wallace used a case study of the NSW RFS during the 2019/20 Black Summer Bushfires to gauge whether co-production is an effective way for emergency agencies to operate.
“Given the voluntary involvement of local residents, the costs associated with firefighting and fire protection are much lower than if these services had been provided by public agencies or the private sector,” she says.
“Another success point is the social capital created from relying on local volunteers. During the 2019/20 NSW bushfires, nearly 70 percent of NSW RFS had firefighting qualifications, and obtained those qualifications voluntarily and in their own time because they care about the community they live in.”
Image: An RFS volunteer observes the damage during the 2019/20 Black Summer Bushfires. (Credit: Stuart Shaw, Getty Images).
The case study showed that while the efforts of volunteers were invaluable, the co-production model had some weaknesses, such as communication issues, lack of resources and local knowledge.
“Prior to the 2019/20 bushfire season, NSW had experienced three years of severe drought that had reduced the availability of NSW RFS volunteers which placed a greater burden on interstate and international personnel who did not have a great deal of knowledge about local areas,” says Dr Wallace.
“Communication was also problematic and it highlighted the weaknesses of many systems within the NSW RFS, as well as the disaster management agencies responsible for managing firefighting operations. The NSW RFS was also too under resourced to adequately respond to such a large and unusual event.”
Dr Wallace says it’s important to note that the 2019/20 bushfires were unlike anything we’d seen before, and would have been difficult for anyone -government or volunteer agency- to plan for.
Despite this, the findings provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of co-production and what can be improved on to guide policy and governments in the future.
“Future research on how the NSW RFS co-production model compares with co-production models in other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, would prove useful,” she says.
“In particular, more information about operational and funding models, volunteer motivation, and co-production synergies could further highlight the operational strengths and weaknesses of the NSW RFS and offer valuable insights to public policymakers.”
You can read the full study which was recently published in the Australasian Journal of Regional Studies here.
