12 simple ways you can reduce bushfire risk to older homes



There are no guarantees in bushfires, but you can improve the odds your house survives a blaze.
Photo by Edward Doody, courtesy of Arkin Tilt Architects, Author provided

Douglas Brown, Western Sydney University

Seventy-five years of Australian research into how houses respond to bushfire has identified 21 main weak points in houses and the area immediately surrounding them.

In recent decades this knowledge has been used to inform new building construction. But older houses are generally not built to the same standard, unless they have been significantly renovated.

Older homes make up the majority of buildings in bushfire prone-areas. There are some simple things that can improve the performance of an older house in a bushfire. Here are 12 suggestions: six simple projects that could be done over a weekend or two, and six low-cost things you could do in a single afternoon.




Read more:
Where to take refuge in your home during a bushfire


Six weekend projects:

1. Remove some garden beds next to the house

This is particularly true for garden beds near timber-framed windows and doors. For timber and fibro homes, garden beds adjacent to the house should be avoided entirely. At the very least prune dense bushes close to timber-framed windows back hard.

2. Sand and repaint weathered timber door and window frames

Over time, paint peels and cracks appear in the exposed and weathered timber. During a bushfire, embers can lodge in these cracks and ignite.

3. Enclose the subfloor with a metal mesh

Flammable items are often stored underneath the house. If this area is not enclosed these items will catch, often due to ember attack, and pose a threat to every room in the house. The exposed underside of timber floors can be protected with a lightweight, non-combustible layer.




Read more:
Curious Kids: how do bushfires start?


4. Repair or replace weathered timber decking

Just as embers can land in cracks in door and window frames, the same can also happen to weathered timber decking. Most decks are right next to the house and if they go up fire easily spreads to the home.

5. Have a 1-2 metre non-flammable area immediately around your house

Think of it as an additional protective defence area. You could use gravel, paving tiles, bricks, concrete, or ground rock such as scoria.

6. Get a professional roof inspection

Roofs gradually weaken and require maintenance. A professional roof repairer can check that tiles are in place, repair damaged ridge tiles, and ensure that skylights, air vents, evaporative coolers, and solar panels are in good order and are free from gaps where embers could enter.

The product specifications for timber door and window frames, metal mesh, and decking materials can be found in the relevant Australian Standard and steel construction standard. Actual requirements for houses vary according to the bushfire attack level associated with a specific block of land.

Open sub floor spaces are vulnerable, especially if used to store flammable material.
Douglas Brown, Author provided

Six easy afternoon projects

1. Replace natural coil doormats with synthetic

While they appear harmless, natural organic doormats can cause a fire to grow if they ignite. Due to their density they burn for a long time, and can spread flames to timber door frames. A synthetic mat will only flare up for a short time.

2. Remove organic mulch from garden beds next to the house

Burning embers can easily ignite dried-out organic mulch, setting fire to surrounding plants. If garden beds are near the house, particularly timber door and window frames, the danger is increased. Either remove mulch in garden beds next to the house or – if the mulch is suitable – dig it in deeply.

3. Store firewood in an enclosed metal container

It is best to store wood well away from the house, but no one wants to walk metres in cold winters to get that wood. So some firewood is often stored close to the house on a burnable deck, and often it’s left there over summer. Putting it into a large metal container can remove that fire risk.

4. Remove flammable material from the front porch, roof cavity, decking and underfloor area

When embers enter the roof cavity and underneath the house, flames can rapidly spread to every room. It is vital to keep these areas clear of flammable materials.

5. Replace timber benches on timber decks with synthetic ones

A timber bench on a timber deck next to a timber house is an unnecessary risk, similar to having a wood pile on a timber deck.

6. Turn pressure relief valves on outside gas bottles away from the house

Both the 2003 Canberra and the 2016 Wye River bushfires showed the danger of having gas bottle valves facing the house. In both fires, houses were destroyed when either the gas plume flamed or gas bottles exploded.

While these projects will improve the bushfire protection of your home, they can’t guarantee your home will survive a bushfire, especially during catastrophic bushfire conditions. It is also crucial to upgrade your home insurance so you can meet the higher costs of new building standards, in the event you have to rebuild. And in all cases, act on warnings given by your state or territory fire authority.


The advice given in this article is general and may not suit every circumstance.The Conversation

Douglas Brown, Casual Academic, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Most native bird species are losing their homes, even the ones you see every day



Eastern-yellow robin. Some 60 per cent of the native birds of south-east mainland Australia have lost more than half of their natural habitat.
Graham Winterflood/Wikimedia Commons

Jeremy Simmonds, The University of Queensland; Alvaro Salazar, The University of Queensland; James Watson, The University of Queensland, and Martine Maron, The University of Queensland

Across parts of Australia, vast areas of native vegetation have been cleared and replaced by our cities, farms and infrastructure. When native vegetation is removed, the habitat and resources that it provides for native wildlife are invariably lost.

Our environmental laws and most conservation efforts tend to focus on what this loss means for species that are threatened with extinction. This emphasis is understandable – the loss of the last individual of a species is profoundly sad and can be ecologically devastating.




Read more:
An end to endings: how to stop more Australian species going extinct


But what about the numerous other species also affected by habitat loss, that have not yet become rare enough to be listed as endangered? These animals and plants — variously described as “common” or of “least concern” — are having their habitat chipped away. This loss usually escapes our attention.

These common species have intrinsic ecological value. But they also provide important opportunities for people to connect with nature – experiences that are under threat.

A chain used for land clearing is dragged over a pile of burning wood at a Queensland property.
Dan Peled/AAP

The “loss index”: tracking the destruction

We developed a measure called the loss index to communicate how habitat loss affects multiple Australian bird species. Our measure showed that across Victoria, and into South Australia and New South Wales, more than 60% of 262 native birds have each lost more than half of their original natural habitat. The vast majority of these species are not formally recognised as being threatened with extinction.

It is a similar story in the Brigalow Belt of central New South Wales and Queensland. The picture is brighter in the northern savannas across the top of Australia, where large tracts of native vegetation remain – notwithstanding pervasive threats such as inappropriate fire regimes.




Read more:
Fixing Australia’s extinction crisis means thinking bigger than individual species


We also found that in some areas, such as Southeast Queensland and the Wet Tropics region of north Queensland, the removal of a single hectare of forest habitat can affect up to 180 different species. In other words, small amounts of loss can affect large numbers of (mostly common) species.

Our index allowed us to compare how different groups of birds are impacted by habitat loss. Australia’s iconic parrots have been hit hard by habitat loss, because many of these birds occur in the places where we live and grow our food. Birds of prey such as eagles and owls have, as a group, been less affected. This is because many of these birds occur widely across Australia’s less developed arid interior.

This map shows the number of bird species affected by habitat loss in any region. Grey zones indicate parts of Australia where habitat loss has not occurred. Blue zones have up to 90 species affected by habitat loss, yellow is up to 120 species affected, while the highest category, red, is up to 187 species affected.
Conservation Biology

Habitat loss means far fewer birds

Our study shows many species have lost lots of habitat in certain parts of Australia. We know habitat loss is a major driver of population declines and freefalling numbers of animals globally. A measure of vertebrate population trends — the Living Planet Index — reveals that populations of more than 4,000 vertebrate species around the world are on average less than half of what they were in 1970.

In Australia, the trend is no different. Populations of our threatened birds declined by an average of 52% between 1985 and 2015. Alarmingly, populations for many common Australian birds are also trending downwards, and habitat loss is a major cause. Along Australia’s heavily populated east coast, population declines have been noted for many common species including rainbow bee-eater, double-barred finch, and pale-headed rosella.

Decling common species – rainbow bee-eater (left); double-barred finch (top right); pale-headed rosella (bottom right)
Jim Bendon, G. Winterflood, Aviceda



Read more:
Cats are not scared off by dingoes. We must find another way to protect native animals


This is a major problem for ecosystem health. Common species tend to be more numerous and so perform many roles that we depend on. Our parrots, pigeons, honeyeaters, robins, and many others help pollinate flowers, spread seeds, and keep pest insects in check. In both Europe and Australia, declines in common species have been linked to a reduction in the provision of these vital ecosystem services.

Common species are also the ones that we most associate with. Because they are more abundant and familiar, these animals provide important opportunities for people to connect with nature. Think of the simple pleasure of seeing a colourful robin atop a rural fence post, or a vibrant parrot dashing above the treetops of a suburban creek. The decline of common species may contribute to diminished opportunities for us to interact with nature, leading to an “extinction of experience”, with associated negative implications for our health and well-being.

We mustn’t wait until it’s too late

Our study aims to put the spotlight on common species. They are crucially important, and yet the erosion of their habitat gets little focus. Conserving them now is sensible. Waiting until they have declined before we act will be costly.

These species need more formal recognition and protection in conservation and environmental regulation. For example, greater attention on common species, and the role they play in ecosystem health, should be given in the assessment of new infrastructure developments under Australia’s federal environment laws (formally known as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).

We should be acting now to conserve common species before they slide towards endangerment. Without dedicated attention, we risk these species declining before our eyes, without us even noticing.The Conversation

Jeremy Simmonds, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Conservation Science, The University of Queensland; Alvaro Salazar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland; James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland, and Martine Maron, ARC Future Fellow and Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Greenwashing the property market: why ‘green star’ ratings don’t guarantee more sustainable buildings


Igor Martek, Deakin University and M. Reza Hosseini, Deakin University

Nothing uses more resources or produces more waste than the buildings we live and work in. Our built environment is responsible for half of all global energy use and half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings consume one-sixth of all freshwater, one-quarter of world wood harvests and four-tenths of all other raw materials. The construction and later demolition of buildings produces 40% of all waste.

The sustainability of our buildings is coming under scrutiny, and “green” rating tools are the key method for measuring this. Deakin University’s School of Architecture and Built Environment recently reviewed these certification schemes. Focus group discussions were held in Sydney and Melbourne with representatives in the field of sustainability – including government, green consultancies and rating tool providers.

Two main concerns emerged from our review:

  1. Sustainability ratings tools are not audited. Most ratings tools are predictive, while those few that take measurements use paid third parties. Government plays no active part.

  2. The sustainability parameters measured only loosely intersect with the building occupants’ sustainability concerns. Considerations such as access to transport and amenities are not included.

Focus group sessions run by Deakin University helped identify problems with current sustainability ratings.
Author provided



Read more:
Construction industry loophole leaves home buyers facing higher energy bills


That’s the backdrop to the sustainability targets now being adopted across Australia. Australia has the highest rate of population growth of any developed country. The population now is 24.8 million. It is expected to reach between 30.9 and 42.5 million people by 2056.

More buildings will be needed for these people to live and work in. And we will have to find ways to ensure these buildings are more sustainable if the targets now being adopted are to be achieved.

Over 80% of local governments have zero-emissions targets. Sydney and Canberra have committed to zero-carbon emissions by 2050. Melbourne has pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2020.

So how do green ratings work?

Each green rating tool works by identifying a range of sustainability parameters – such as water and energy use, waste production, etc. The list of things to be measured runs into the dozens. Tools differ on the parameters measured, method of measurement, weightings given and the thresholds that determine a given sustainability rating.

There are over 600 such rating tools worldwide. Each competes in the marketplace by looking to reconcile the credibility of its ratings with the disinclination of developers to submit to an assessment that will rate them poorly. Rating tools found in Australia include Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS, Circles of Sustainability, EnviroDevelopment, Living Community Challenge and One Planet Communities.

So, it is easy enough to find landmark developments labelled with green accreditations. It is harder to quantify what these actually mean.




Read more:
Green building revolution? Only in high-end new CBD offices


Ratings must be independently audited

Government practice, historically, has been to assure building quality through permits. Planning permits ensure a development conforms with city schemes. Building permits assess structural load-bearing capacity, health and fire safety.

All this is done off the plan. Site inspections take place to verify that the building is built to plan. But once a certificate of occupancy is issued, the government steps aside.

The sustainability agenda promoted by government has been grafted onto this regime. Energy efficiency was introduced into the residential building code in 2005, and then into the commercial building code in 2006. At first, this was limited to new buildings, but then broadened to include refurbishment of existing structures.

Again, sustainability credentials are assessed off the plan and certification issued once the building is up and running. Thereafter, government walks away.

We know of only one longitudinal energy performance study carried out on domestic residences in Australia. It is an as-yet-unpublished project conducted by a retiree from the CSIRO, working with Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland.

The findings corroborate a recent study by Gertrud Hatvani-Kovacs and colleagues from the University of South Australia. This study found that so-called “energy-inefficient” houses, following traditional design, managed under certain conditions to outperform 6- and 8-star buildings.

Sustainability tools must measure what matters

Energy usage is but the tip of the iceberg. Genuine sustainability is about delivering our children into a future in which they have all that we have today.

Home owners, on average, turn their property around every eight years. They are less concerned with energy efficiency than with real estate prices. And these prices depend on the appeal of the property, which involves access to transport, schools, parks and amenities, and freedom from crime.

Commercial property owners, too, are concerned about infrastructure, and they care about creating work environments that retain valued employees.

These are all core sustainability issues, yet do not come up in the rating systems we use.

The ConversationIf government is serious about creating sustainable cities, it needs to let go of its limited, narrow criteria and embrace these larger concerns of “liveability”. It must embody these broader criteria in the rating systems it uses to endorse developments. And it needs an auditing and enforcement regime in place to make it happen.

Igor Martek, Lecturer In Construction, Deakin University and M. Reza Hosseini, Lecturer in Construction, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Low-energy homes don’t just save money, they improve lives


File 20170717 6046 1bm1rcr
Eco-houses at Scotland’s Housing Expo, Inverness. What is it like to live in a house like this?
via Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

Stephen Berry, University of South Australia; David Michael Whaley, University of South Australia, and Trivess Moore, RMIT University

Household energy use is a significant contributor to global carbon emissions. International policy is firmly moving towards technology-rich, low- and near-zero-energy homes. That is, buildings designed to reduce the need for additional heating, cooling and lighting. They use efficient or renewable energy technology to reduce the remaining energy use.

But what about the experiences of people who live in homes of this standard? Are these homes comfortable, easy to operate, and affordable? Do people feel confident using so-called smart energy technology designed for low energy use? What support systems do we need to help people live in low-energy, low-carbon houses?

We worked with other Australian and UK researchers to understand what it’s like to live in purpose-built low-energy housing. As part of this project, researchers from Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Salford in the UK visited South Australia to collect data from Lochiel Park Green Village, one of the world’s most valuable living laboratories of near-zero energy homes.

Lochiel Park’s 103 homes were built in the mid-2000s to achieve a minimum of 7.5 energy efficiency stars. They’re purpose-built to be a comfortable temperature year-round, and are packed with a solar photovoltaic system, solar hot water, a live feedback display to show households their energy use, plus a range of water- and energy-efficient appliances and equipment. Combined, these systems reduce both annual and peak energy demand, and supply much of that energy at a net zero-carbon impact.

To reciprocate, we spent several weeks investigating similar examples of niche low-energy housing developments in the Midlands and the North of England. We listened to the stories of people living in low energy homes, who experience the difference on a daily basis, and from season to season. They help us look beyond the dollars saved or percentage of emissions reduced; for them the impact of low-energy homes is personal.

This research provides new insights into the relationship between people, energy technologies and low-carbon buildings. For example, one elderly householder told us that moving into a dry and warm low-energy home allowed their grandchildren to come and stay, completely changing their life, and the life of their family.

Low-energy homes create a wide range of physical and mental changes. Several households spoke about health improvements from higher indoor air quality. Even the idea of living in a healthier and more environmentally sustainable home can prompt lifestyle changes – one woman in her mid-50s told us she gave up smoking after moving into her low-energy house because she felt her behaviour should match the building’s environmental design. She also shortened the length of her showers, reduced her food wastage, and lowered her transport use by visiting the supermarket less often.

Purpose-built low-energy homes also give economic empowerment to low-income households. One household told us that savings on energy bills let them afford annual family holidays, even overseas. This economic benefit matches our findings in other Australian examples.

As researchers, we might dismiss this as a macro-economic rebound effect, voiding many of the energy and environmental benefits. But to that household the result was a closer and stronger family unit, able to make the types of choices available to others in their community. The benefits in mental and physical wellbeing are real, and more important to that family than net carbon emission reductions.

Although international policy is firmly moving towards technology-rich, low-energy homes, our research shows that not all technology is user-friendly or easy to understand. For example, some households were frustrated by not knowing if their solar hot water system was efficiently using free solar energy, or just relying on gas or electric boosting. Design improvements with better user feedback will be critically important if we are to meet people’s real needs.

The ConversationThis research highlights the importance, in the transition to low-energy and low-carbon homes, of not forgetting the people themselves. Improving real quality of life should be the central focus of carbon-reducing housing policies.

Stephen Berry, Research fellow, University of South Australia; David Michael Whaley, Research Fellow in Sustainable Energy and Electrical Engineering, University of South Australia, and Trivess Moore, Research Fellow, RMIT University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Giant, oil-belching sinkhole dooms more than 100 homes in Louisiana


Grist

It’s looking like a neighborhood in Assumption Parish, La., has been permanently wiped out by a sloppy salt-mining company.

A sinkhole in the area has grown to 15 acres since an old salt mine that was emptied to supply the local petrochemical industry with brine began collapsing in August. Hundreds of neighbors were long ago evacuated, and many of them are now accepting that they will never return to their homes.

The sinkhole isn’t just endangering homes, it is also burping out oil, natural gas, and debris, shaking the area so powerfully that seismic equipment is being used to monitor the site. And brine from the sinkhole is in danger of contaminating local waterways. This thing is so big it even has its own Facebook page.

View original post 288 more words

Article: Australia – Old Bar Under Threat


The link below is to an article reporting on coastal erosion at Old Bar, New South Wales, Australia. This town is just up the coast from where I live. It is a similar situation to Winda Woppa, which is only a suburb away from me. During intense storms the ocean erodes the sandy coastline rapidly and homes are increasingly at threat from storm surges.

The article below suggests that the situation at Old Bar is being caused by sea level rises as a consequence of climate change. This is the sort of reporting that is bringing a lot of discredit to climate change advocates, as it is not an honest report on the actual situation being reported on. I would not dispute that climate change is bringing us more severe weather events and this is certainly increasing pressure on coastal areas like Old Bar and Winda Woppa – but it is not sea level rises that is the problem. Factual and honest reporting is what is needed.

To view the article visit:
http://www.mmail.com.my/story/sea-rise-threatens-paradise-down-under-23507

Malcolm Naden: Barrington Tops Warning for Travellers


Travellers to the Barrington Tops are being warned that outlaw and modern bushranger Malcolm Naden is suspected of hiding out in the remote wilderness area. There is currently a $50 000 reward for information that leads to his capture. He is the most wanted person in New South Wales, suspected of being involved in the disappearance of his cousin Lateesha Nolan and the murder of Kristy Scholes in 2005 at Dubbo.

Naden has sought refuge in the bush in the region bordered by Dubbo in the west and Kempsey in the east since 2005. During this time he has broken into homes, stealing non-perishable food items, camping gear and other equipment required to survive the bushland in which he hides and lives. He is known to be an expert bushman.

Naden first hid in the Western Plains Zoo at Dubbo and has since been known to have been in the vicinity of the Barrington Tops. In 2008 he was known to be in the vicinity of Stewarts Brook, in the western Barrington Tops area. In January 2009 he was known to be at Bellbrook, west of Kempsey. Three months ago he was known to be at Mount Mooney, in the northern Barrington Tops. It is thought that he is also responsible for similar break-ins around the Mount Mooney area in late August 2010. There have been a large number of break-ins across the region this year. He is believed to be armed, with a rifle having been stolen in one of the break-ins. Not all of the break-ins are confirmed as being committed by Malcolm Naden, but they all seem to bear his signature.

According to local newspapers, it is also believed that kangaroo carcasses have been found in the Barrington Tops, butchered in an expert manner. Naden was an abattoir worker and similar carcasses were found at the Dubbo zoo when Naden was hiding there.

The area in which Malcolm Naden is thought to be hiding was once the hideout for the bushranger known as ‘Captain Thunderbolt.’ Naden seems to be following in Thunderbolt’s footsteps in more ways than one.

For more on Malcolm Naden visit:

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/can_you_help_us/wanted/malcolm_john_naden

http://coastmick21.blogspot.com/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-seek-man-on-run-after-cousin-found-dead/2005/08/21/1124562750384.html

http://www.australianmissingpersonsregister.com/Naden.htm

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/wanted-man-and-a-town-in-fear/2009/01/17/1232213416486.html

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=4884239637&topic=7725

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/danger-at-the-tops-break-ins-point-to-fugitive/1928579.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/publics-help-sought-over-murder-cases-20100904-14v5u.html