Scholarlink

<p>Rising incidence and severity of climate-induced wildfires test traditional top-down fire governance regimes worldwide. This systematic review assesses Australian Community-Based Bushfire Management (CBBM) initiatives, critiquing their framework, implementation, and efficacy to draw out transferable features for California’s wildfire management regime. Based on 38 empirical studies (2000–2025) in Victoria, NSW, and Western Australia, we established that Australian CBBM initiatives successfully reconcile centralized coordination with local autonomy through multi-level government management, constructive community engagement, and formalized indigenous knowledge incorporation. Such initiatives demonstrably lowered property damage, elevated community preparedness, produced ecological dividends, and fortified social capital. Although California’s unique regulatory and institutional profile warrants judicious adaptation over literal duplication, promising transferable features comprise multi-stakeholder deliberative forums, neutral brokerage, participatory risk analysis, and formalized Traditional Ecological Knowledge incorporation. Implementation hinges on regulatory recalibration, resource shifting, and institutional investment. This research contributes to the academic literature on adaptive and collaborative government in natural disaster risk management in the face of galloping climate change.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative analysis of Community-Based wildfire management: A systematic review of Australian approaches and implications for California

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月11日

查看全文
  • Jaideep Visave,
  • Daniel P. Aldrich

摘要

Rising incidence and severity of climate-induced wildfires test traditional top-down fire governance regimes worldwide. This systematic review assesses Australian Community-Based Bushfire Management (CBBM) initiatives, critiquing their framework, implementation, and efficacy to draw out transferable features for California’s wildfire management regime. Based on 38 empirical studies (2000–2025) in Victoria, NSW, and Western Australia, we established that Australian CBBM initiatives successfully reconcile centralized coordination with local autonomy through multi-level government management, constructive community engagement, and formalized indigenous knowledge incorporation. Such initiatives demonstrably lowered property damage, elevated community preparedness, produced ecological dividends, and fortified social capital. Although California’s unique regulatory and institutional profile warrants judicious adaptation over literal duplication, promising transferable features comprise multi-stakeholder deliberative forums, neutral brokerage, participatory risk analysis, and formalized Traditional Ecological Knowledge incorporation. Implementation hinges on regulatory recalibration, resource shifting, and institutional investment. This research contributes to the academic literature on adaptive and collaborative government in natural disaster risk management in the face of galloping climate change.