Scientific knowledge and scientific uncertainty in bushfire and flood risk mitigation: literature review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy and Planning (RMPP) project aims to investigate the diversity and uncertainty of bushfire and flood science, and its contribution to risk mitigation policy and planning. The project investigates how policy makers, practitioners, courts, inquiries and the community differentiate, understand and use scientific knowledge in relation to bushfire and flood risk. It uses qualitative social science methods and case studies to analyse how diverse types of knowledge are ordered and judged as salient, credible and authoritative, and the pragmatic meaning this holds for emergency management across the PPRR spectrum. This research report is the second literature review of the RMPP project and was written before any of the case studies had been completed. It synthesises approximately 250 academic sources on bushfire and flood risk science, including research on hazard modelling, prescribed burning, hydrological engineering, development planning, meteorology, climatology and evacuation planning. The report also incorporates theoretical insights from the fields of risk studies and science and technology studies (STS), as well as indicative research regarding the public understandings of science, risk communication and deliberative planning. This report outlines the key scientific practices (methods and knowledge) and scientific uncertainties in bushfire and flood risk mitigation in Australia. Scientific uncertainties are those ‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’ that emerge from the development and utilisation of scientific knowledge. Risk mitigation involves those processes through which agencies attempt to limit the vulnerability of assets and values to a given hazard. The focus of this report is the uncertainties encountered and managed by risk mitigation professionals in regards to these two hazards, though literature regarding natural sciences and the scientific method more generally are also included where appropriate. It is important to note that while this report excludes professional experience and local knowledge from its consideration of uncertainties and knowledge, these are also very important aspects of risk mitigation which will be addressed in the RMPP project’s case studies. Key findings of this report include: Risk and scientific knowledge are both constructed categories, indicating that attempts to understand any individual instance of risk or scientific knowledge should be understood in light of the social, political, economic, and ecological context in which they emerge. Uncertainty is a necessary element of scientific methods, and as such risk mitigation practitioners and researchers alike should seek to ‘embrace uncertainty’ (Moore et al., 2005) as part of navigating bushfire and flood risk mitigation