1. 1. Contents
2. Executive Summary.....................................................................1
3. Introduction...................................................................................3
4. Method...........................................................................................4
4.1 Procedure.................................................................................................4
4.2 Sample.....................................................................................................5
4.3 Instruments ..............................................................................................6
5. Results...........................................................................................6
5.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs......................................................................7
5.1.2 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign........7
5.1.3 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block
residents, urban visitors and international visitors ..........................................10
5.1.4 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating..............................14
5.1.5 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments.............15
5.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits.................................................................17
5.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions......................................................17
5.2.3 Communication of fire restrictions .........................................................18
5.3 National Publicity Campaign..................................................................21
5.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign.......................................21
5.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services..................................................22
5.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign........................................................23
5.4 General Questions.................................................................................25
5.4.1 Other publicity initiatives for promoting fire awareness..........................25
5.4.2 The half- grapefruit sign and arson fire starts.........................................25
5.4.3 Final comments.....................................................................................26
6. Discussion...................................................................................27
6.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs....................................................................27
6.1.1 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-grapefruit sign......27
6.1.2 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle block
residents, urban visitors and international visitors...........................................28
6.1.3 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating..............................30
6.1.4 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable environments ............32
6.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits.................................................................33
I

2. 6.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions......................................................33
6.2.2 Communication of fire restrictions..........................................................34
6.3 National Publicity Campaign..................................................................34
6.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign.......................................34
6.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services..................................................35
6.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign........................................................36
7. Conclusion..................................................................................37
8. References..................................................................................42
9. Bibliography................................................................................42
Appendix.........................................................................................44
II

3. 2. Executive Summary
A pilot trial of Canterbury fire officers was developed and undertaken to
examine the messages fire authorities are seeking to convey through fire
danger communication. This report details the methods, findings and
recommendations of the research study. The intention is to be a
summation of the interviews conducted and to inform of significant issues
that arose during the study to benefit future research in fire danger
communication systems. The expanded study is to be carried out under
the Ensis Bushfire Research Programme (Ensis is the Joint Forces of
CSIRO and Scion, formerly Forest Research).
The main findings of this report are summarised below:
Fire Danger Warning Signs
• There is no clear, distinguished information on the signs to instruct
the public what behaviour they should adhere to in each individual
rating. Fire officers believe that the public are confused with the
messages of fire ratings depicted on the signs. The fire officers
themselves were unsure with what specific behaviour was allowed
in relation to the signs’ rating ratings.
• The ratings ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ are associated with an open fire
season and that it is relatively safe for fire activity. The ratings ‘high’
to ‘extreme’ are associated with a restricted or prohibited fire
season, where it is dangerous to have fire activity. There is no
information on the sign to notify the public that the rating ratings are
related to fire seasons.
• The signs do not give clarity to the public on how they should
modify their fire activity in relation to the fire rating ratings. The only
messages the signs convey is that the public should be generally
aware and cautious of their activities in rural environments.
• Fire officers would prefer to change the arrow on the sign in relation
to seasonal fluctuations in the environment. This was to insure
accuracy of the sign and to answer public criticism that the signs
were inaccurate or not frequently updated.
Fire Restrictions and Permits
• Fire officers believe the public are confused with the differences
between an open, restricted and prohibited fire season. The public
were seen to have limited knowledge on what and when outdoor fire
activities require a permit.
• A degree of personal responsibility was expected from the public,
as they were required to contact authorities to check what the fire
season was and if they need a permit. It was presumed the public
1

4. had knowledge regarding fire activity in rural areas, despite many
urban residents not having experience with fire use as a tool.
• There is difficulty communicating a holistic message regarding fire
restrictions and permits as there are varying rules and regulations
for different rural jurisdictions.
National Publicity Campaign
• The Bernie campaign is thought to be effective at educating
general awareness of fire danger at a national level, and that these
messages were widely recognised by the public. However, there is
doubt that Bernie is effective at representing the aims of the Rural
Fire Authority and that the campaign’s messages were not specific
enough to generate behavioural change in the publics psyche.
• The message to ‘dial 111 if you see a wildfire’ is deemed
appropriate by fire officers, but they also think more emphasis
needs to be on preventative, pro-active messages relating to fire
danger.
• The Bernie character is popular with the majority of fire officers, but
there is a consciousness that the campaign needs to be monitored
to see if it is reaching the intended target audiences, specifically
lifestyle block owners, international visitors and urban visitors.
Updating the Bernie character by redesigning the graphics and
developing the meaning of the messages was of importance to
retain his relevance to the audience.
By expanding this research into a nationwide study of fire officers, it will
discover the intended behaviour that is expected from the public in relation
to fire danger communication. This is of importance as these intended
messages of what behaviour is required from the public to prevent fire
outbreaks can be incorporated to develop more specific and efficient fire
danger communication. A national study to examine the public’s
knowledge and understanding surrounding issues that arose from the pilot
study would be beneficial for the public and the National Fire Authority.
2

5. 3. Introduction
The development and undertaking of this research study and pilot trial is
intended for Ensis (the Joint Forces of CISRO and Scion), which will be
developed further into a broader study of the communication of fire danger
warnings in New Zealand. The project is part of the Social Science
Research Centre studentship during the summer of 2006/2007 at the
University of Canterbury. This research is to progress from the previous
year’s studentship with Ensis, which reported on international literature
relating to the communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand.
To expand from last year’s studentship, and to be beneficial to the goals of
the Ensis, this studentship provided a more ambitious task. The aim was to
design an interview for fire officers in relation to the communication of fire
danger warnings in New Zealand and to undertake a pilot trial in the
Canterbury region using the study design. The outcome of the study was
to explore the messages that fire officers are seeking to convey with fire
danger rating signs and other forms of fire danger communication. Further
research would involve investigating the publics understanding of their
behavioural responses in relation to these messages.
Bones (2006) reported that there was limited research and assessment
regarding fire danger communication systems. A future suggestion to
survey fire officers was put forward in her future recommendations. This
aimed to gain perspective into what fire authorities are seeking from fire
danger warning communication, and how they would want the public to
behave when confronted with these messages. It was commented on that
if the public obediently follows the rules and regulations relating to fire in
rural jurisdictions, there should be no ignitions in restricted or prohibited
areas. There would be no need for the fire danger warning sign to alert the
public of how dangerous fire ignitions would be in the area, as any fire
activity would be disobeying the rules and regulations initially imposed by
the fire authorities and thus undermined the purpose of fire restrictions and
prohibitions. Bones (2006) report concluded that it is of utmost importance
to clarify the aims of the transmitter and find out exactly what the required
action is. To change behaviour (in this case the actions of the public in
relation to fire danger), you must take into account the aims of the
transmitter (the National Rural Fire Authority), the channel (fire danger
warning signs, the internet, television, radio and promotional material) and
the receiver (the New Zealand public) (Mayhorn cited in Bones 2006).
Previous surveys such as the 2006 New Zealand Fire Service Survey
(TNS Research 2006) have investigated public awareness of fire danger
rating signs, but not behaviour in relation to these signs.
This report will introduce the methods undertaken during the planning and
development stages of designing the pilot trial and the process of
3

6. interviewing the National Rural Fire Authorities officers in the Canterbury
region. The results and findings will be put forward relating to the individual
sections of the interview: fire danger warning signs, fire restrictions
and permits, the national publicity campaign and general questions.
Later the implications of the findings that arose from the interviews will be
examined in the discussion section of the report. The final section will have
suggestions for fire warning communication improvements and future
recommendations for research. The report is intended to be a
summarisation of the interviews in the study, but also to be of benefit to
the future researchers investigating this area and to those who are
interested in the intended use of fire danger communication. The research
pilot study has begun to tread new ground to a previously unmonitored
area in national fire research.
4. Method
Ensis has encouraged the combination of forestry science and social
science to investigate preventative measures against rural fire outbreaks
in New Zealand. Future research under Ensis regarding the
communication of fire danger warnings in New Zealand will work closely
using social science research methods. The purpose of this is to gain
another perspective into the nature of the public and fire authorities’
behaviour and reactions regarding bushfire. The aim was to begin this
study for future researchers and to record the results of the pilot trial
undertaken. There are further aspirations to expand the study nationally.
The research project is to contribute to the wider study by collecting and
analysing the results from the research of fire officers and deputies in
Canterbury.
4.1 Procedure
The essential element of this research project was that attention needed to
focus on the intended message of fire danger warning communication and
how effective they are at achieving the aims of the rural fire authorities.
Specifically the study will look at the fire danger warning signs, which are
commonly referred to as “half-grapefruit signs”. Since Ensis and the
National Rural Fire Authority have adopted this term to describe the fire
danger rating signs in New Zealand, “half-grapefruit” is used when
describing the signs during the research project.
The hypothesis was that the fire officers would have no clear definition of
what the recommended behaviour was for the half-grapefruit signs
individual ratings. Public awareness of the half-grapefruit sign has
previously been examined, but it is predicted that they would be unaware
of how they should adapt their behaviour in relation to the signs ratings.
4

7. Helens Bones’ report “Communication of Fire Danger Warnings in New
Zealand and Overseas” (2006) for Ensis provided the majority of relevant
information. Bones’ literature review condensed the bulk of the readings
from books, journals, articles and the internet so it was a manageable task
to gain the background information promptly. Bones’ observation that there
was limited information about the evaluation of fire communication
warnings locally and internationally (2006) was correct, that there was
limited research regarding fire danger communication.
Issues of importance and consistencies that continually arose were noted
during the literature review. Areas the interview should concentrate on
where how the public is expected to behave when the arrow is in a specific
area of the half-grapefruit sign (e.g. ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’’ very high’ and
‘extreme’)? What behavioural differences are there in relation to different
groups that enter a rural area (e.g. rural dwellers, urban dwellers, lifestyle
block owners, recreational users and international tourists)? What
behaviours are fire officers trying to modify using fire danger
communication?
To incorporate the points raised into an interview, condensation of existing
notes were done. The original project was to focus on the half-grapefruit
signs, but from issues that had arisen, it was decided to expand the
interview to have four separate sections. The interview would cover fire
danger warning signs (the half-grapefruit sign), fire restrictions and
permits, the national publicity campaign and general questions relating to
future research. The final study design of the interview contained twenty-
nine questions and the interviewing process could commence. The fire
scientists at Ensis evaluated the interview questions for the intended
audience.
4.2 Sample
Principal Rural Fire Officers and Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officers in the
Canterbury region were the focus of the study as there had been no
previous research on their perceptions of fire danger communication. Fire
officers are on call providing an emergency service; they witness first hand
whether the public is behaving appropriately and whether they are using
the half-grapefruit sign as a reference for behaviour. They have
experience of how effective current fire danger communication is and if it
effects the publics behaviour in rural areas. The fire officers’ evaluation of
fire danger communication systems in New Zealand should be
investigated and incorporated to improve communication methods to the
public. It is being assumed that the National Rural Fire Authority is trying to
transmit the message of behavioural change for the safety of both property
and the public. It has been suggested that there is confusion amongst the
public regarding appropriate behaviour when in contact with the half-
grapefruit sign and other fire danger communication in rural areas.
5

8. Potential participants were contacted by email, which detailed the purpose
and requirements of the research project. The contacts on the list were
approached to set up a suitable time and place for the interviews. The
selections of participants were from urban areas and rural districts in the
Canterbury region. Seven interviews of rural fire officers and deputies were
conducted from a variety of locations around Canterbury to gain a
geographical spread.
Ensis has worked extensively with the National Rural Fire Authorities, and
it was expected that there would be a positive response from the contacts
when they were asked to be an interview participant. Four of the rural
based district officers and deputies gladly met for their individual interviews
in the Forestry department at the University of Canterbury. The remaining
three urban-based officers and deputies were interviewed in meeting
rooms at the Department of Conservation, the Christchurch City Council
and the National Rural Fire Authority which were in Christchurch. The
length of the interviews varied from forty minutes to two hours, depending
on how much the participant had to discuss on the topic. Confidentiality of
the interviews meant that the privacy of names and status was ensured. All
interviews were recorded on a dictaphone and then transcribed.
4.3 Instruments
Ensis sought a qualitative study of fire officers in the Canterbury region, as
it was believed this would gain more insight into the topic than a traditional
quantitative survey. There was consciousness that high quality results
from the research were expected from the research and emphasis was not
put on the quantity of interviews to gain conclusions and
recommendations. The informal discussion technique of qualitative
interviewing expected to uncover more in-depth realisations and personal
opinions on the topic than a mass quantitative survey could achieve.
5. Results
The interviews aimed to explore not only the messages fire officers are
seeking to convey through fire danger warning signs, but also other forms
of fire communication and publicity. The findings have been organised in
sections corresponding to the questions asked during the interview
process. Fire danger warning signs (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) focuses on
the half-grapefruit signs that are placed along roadsides and have the
arrow pointing to the rating showing the current fire risk. Fire restrictions
and permits deals with areas that are labelled as having open or
prohibited fire activity. This is in relation to public notification on fire
restriction signs, the newspaper and websites. The national publicity
campaign (See Fig. 3) relates to the “keep it green” campaign that has
6

9. been running since 1992. The cartoon character, Bernie is seen in the
television ad running up and down New Zealand changing arrows on half-
grapefruit signs. Bernie is on all the National Rural Fire Authorities
promotional media material.
5.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs
5.1.2 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-
grapefruit sign
The interviewed participants stated that the purpose of the half-grapefruit
sign is to indicate to the public the associated risk or danger of a fire
starting. The participants explained that the half-grapefruit sign was a tool
for educating the public about fire danger and it illustrated the
consequences of a fire starting in a specific rural area. The majority of
responses were in alignment that the purpose and intention of the half-
grapefruit sign, as expressed by two of the interviewed fire officers:
“To relate to the public the chance of a fire starting and the damage the
fires can do if they do start.”
“To communicate to the local community the risk of a fire starting and what
the consequences are or will be if one does start.”
Two participants thought the purpose of the half-grapefruit sign was to
inform the public of the problems that authorities would face controlling fire
events. The message to be conveyed to the public was believed to be
what level of risk there is of a fire outbreak and the associated problems
for fire authorities. Another response brought up an important issue
relating to public reliance on emergency services. There was an
awareness among interviewed fire officers that the public are not aware
that the half-grapefruit signs also stand for how difficult it will be for fire
authorities to extinguish fires. When the arrow is on extreme it means that
fires can start easily and “the head fire intensity will be such that we won’t
be able to put them out…I don’t think the public know that. They think that
when a fire starts we will always come and save them.”
Connection of the half-grapefruit to open, restricted and prohibited
fire seasons
Bones (2006) stated the general information to be conveyed by the
National Rural Fire Authority using the half-grapefruit sign is that the ‘low’
to ‘moderate’ fire rating is relatively safe conditions and ‘high’ to ‘extreme’
indicates dangerous conditions. The view is that as there are prohibitions
on lighting a fire through restrictions and bans can be imposed, that it is
difficult to see what extra information the signs offer. If the public follows
the rules and regulations set by the local fire authorities, then ideally no
7

10. fires should be lit in an area with restricted or banned fire activity. It would
be difficult to see what extra information the half-grapefruit sign offered
about ignitions, as fires would be disallowed.
The half-grapefruit sign uses a colour-coded rating system: ‘low’ (green),
‘moderate’ (blue), ‘high’ (yellow), ‘very high’ (orange) and ‘extreme’ (red)
Two participants gave the following summation of the half-grapefruit sign
ratings as a scale to measure fire danger: ‘It gives a relevant scale to
mean basically little risk of ignition up extreme risk of ignition.’ The other
participant pointed out the importance of showing the ratings low to
extreme: “The fact that there is a difference between low, high and
extreme so it’s sort of like a continuum thing rather than a particular
meaning.” Two of the participants were concerned that the public lacked
understanding of the signs rating system. ‘I know exactly what the ratings
mean, but the public probably don’t.’ The other participant felt that the
public were baffled with the rating system. Explaining the scientific
background of the ratings would only cause further confusion:
“Personally I’ve got a few problems with the whole thing because I don’t
think the public really understands the difference between say ‘high’ and
‘moderate.’ How do you know what’s ‘high’ and ‘moderate?’ … A lot of it’s
to do with specific measurements that we [fire officers] understand…but
the public is not going to understand all that.”
Fig.1: Fire Danger Warning Sign (Graphic from Ensis fire research photo
CD).
The majority of the other participants said that the ratings ‘low’ to
‘moderate’ are intended to show that it is an open fire season. The colours
represent that it is reasonably safe to light fires and that ignition rates are
low. The discussion followed with the fire officers concerning the ratings in
relation to open and restricted fire seasons. The theory was that the
8

11. majority of the public do not relate the ratings to open, restricted and
prohibited fire seasons. There were two responses suggesting differing
points of view on what an open and restricted fire season was. One
participant said you might be able to gain permits if the rating is on ‘low’
and it is a restricted season. Another said it probably will be an open
season if the rating is on ‘low’ and you do not need a permit to light a fire,
depending on the region.
The majority of responses said that ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ class on the sign
was intended to show that fire activity may be problematic and slightly
more difficult to control than the ‘low’ class. The participants talked about
the fire seasons relating to the class. It was often in non-specific terms,
such as that ‘moderate’ meant that it is was ‘getting into a restricted
season.’
‘Very high’ was seen as the dangerous end of the half-grapefruit sign. One
participant talked about how it was at the high end of the restricted
season. The public could not get this information directly from looking at
the signs rating. Overall, ‘very high’ was thought to indicate that fire
ignitions tended to develop quickly. It was mentioned that ‘very high’
meant that the fire authorities had a short time-frame to control fire
outbreaks.
The ‘extreme’ class meant that the public would be more aware of the
results of fire ignition and that there should be no fires. One participant
said that the public were aware of the costs associated with fire escape.
Another participant said there were fire restrictions in place when the rating
was on ‘extreme’.
The fire officers thought the colour and ‘low’ to ‘extreme’ warning system
was effective in informing the public of fire danger: “I think because it’s a
build up sequence its quite visual, it’s likely to make people aware.” One
criticism that arose was that colour was difficult to relate to levels of fire
danger. When driving past the signs at high speeds, it is difficult to take in
the extent of the message. Despite this one said, “What’s the alternative?”
Four responded positively regarding the colour rating system, citing that
the public, including international visitors understand what the colours
mean: “I don’t think you could get a better colour scheme,” “Very effective
going from green to bright red.” Following this, a participant said that the
science behind the rating system was complex and even some fire officers
do not use it all the time. Educating the public of the science behind the
sign was not recommended. It was thought it would only complicate the
message. It was important that the public realised the purpose of the half-
grapefruit sign was to ‘show the potential for fire ignition and how quickly it
could get out of control. It was thought further background information is
not needed.
Frequency of half-grapefruit sign changes
9

12. Feedback that the fire officers received from the public often regarded the
accuracy of the half-grapefruit sign. Participants have encountered
criticism from the public that the sign is not updated regularly. Another
public complaint was that the sign did not take into account short term
fluctuations in the weather: ‘The accuracy over the short term period
seems to be the biggest criticism.’ One participant agreed the publics’
doubts about the accuracy of the sign were not unfounded:
“You could have had a lot of rain and the indicator itself maybe on
‘extreme,’ and it’s been there for weeks…on some occasions they (the
signs) have been left over a period of time…if we think the public is going
to take any notice, they’re going to think it’s a bit of a joke.”
One participant said “The greatest one [complaint] I get is that people will
be driving along the road and its pouring with rain and the arrows on ‘very
high’ to ‘extreme.’” Three participants independently stated that this
criticism was fair. They pointed out that it was difficult to ensure the arrow
was always pointing on the correct rating at the appropriate time. The
issue is that the officer discussed was that someone had to drive to the
half-grapefruit signs to change the arrow. Many of the signs were in
remote rural areas: “It’s a difficult thing to manage when you’ve got a
number of remote signs to ensure the accuracy of information.” Relating to
this, another officer commented:
“The biggest issue I’ve got with the board [half-grapefruit sign] is that it’s
only effective if its updated on a regular basis…the biggest feedback that
I’ve got is that if the board is not updated it makes a mockery of the
board…the issue is someone has got to drive round the boards to go and
unlock them.”
Lack of public understanding of restrictions and prohibitions
The participants talked of the lack of understanding the public has of
restricted and prohibited fire areas: “‘when are the fire bans coming?’” We
do get a lot of people ringing up,” said one fire officer. Another said that
there was a lot of confusion around Department of Conservation (DOC)
areas, which have a one-kilometre margin around their fire authority. The
problem is increased by the fact that there are thousands of DOC areas
around the country. Some of the public would not be aware that DOC land
and its one-kilometre margin has a permanent restricted fire season in
place all year round. Applying for permits in a restricted season was an
issue that was brought up in one of the interviews: “I get a lot of calls and
queries in regards to permits. There’s some confusion over who issues fire
permits.”
5.1.3 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle
block residents, urban visitors and international visitors
Rural residents, particularly farmers
10

13. Rural residents, particularly farmers were thought to have the greatest
understanding of the messages that the half-grapefruit signs were trying to
transmit. In the participant’s experience, rural residents have a greater
awareness of the potential of fire danger in rural areas than urban
dwellers. This was because they were thought to have been exposed to
the half-grapefruit signs and fire outbreaks during the extensive time they
had lived in the rural areas:
“A farmer who has lived in the district for say twenty years who will
understand the signs strongly relate to the risk of fire. The longer that
they’re exposed to that sign the more likely there is an available standard
to follow.”
Overall, it was thought that locals in rural areas also would be more
knowledgeable of fire danger. One participant thought: “The local person
is probably more aware of their local conditions.” The rural community was
thought to be more aware of the meaning of the half-grapefruit sign and
the different ratings. Farmers were more aware of fire danger as it
threatened their livelihood. An issue that arose was that farmers were
more likely to use fire as a tool. Burning rubbish, tree branches and
stubble burnings were examples of how rural residents could be less
cautious with fire usage than their urban counterparts. Farmers were seen
as more confident in using fire as a tool on their own land: “Generally the
farming community has got a greater awareness of fire danger and fire
behaviour and in also how to use fire as a tool.” It was accepted by most of
the participants that farmers would perform burns:[farmers are] “People
living in a rural environment, who traditionally might burn rubbish.” One
participant looked upon farmers as a sector of the community who thought
that they were “bullet proof” when using fire as a tool, but have been
“caught out” when burns have got out of control. The farmers have been
shocked when they have received bills for the cost of putting out the fire
they ignited. The participants thought that rural residents’ attitudes were
slightly blasé towards the half-grapefruit sign. This was believed to have
happened over time as the sign is a permanent fixture in rural areas:
“Farmers I suspect are taking it for granted, what it [the half-grapefruit sign]
is saying. It’s a thing they see everyday.” Another said, “A local farmer
might drive past it everyday and not take notice of it,” reinforced this
theory.
Lifestyle block residents
When discussing lifestyle block residents it was presumed they have
originally moved from an urban to rural environment where fire has not
been a part of their upbringing. As a result, they lacked knowledge about
the fire danger in the rural environment and experience when confronting
uncontrolled outbreaks: “The bulk of lifestyle owners have probably had an
upbringing where fire hasn’t been part of their normal work practice and
therefore are likely to panic about it.” In relation to the half-grapefruit sign
two fire officer’s said: “The lifestyle block owner will be generally less
aware of what the signs mean and what it means they should do.” Another
remarked, “I’m not sure that the lifestyler and urban dweller really
11

14. understands the significance of the various colours and what it means in
terms of fire danger.” The fire authorities angle was that lifestyle block
residents have a lack of experience in the land management of their
properties. In one example, a fire officer reported that lifestyle block
owners had planted inappropriate shelterbelts and vegetation. The
problem was that this would increase flammable fuel loadings on
properties and increase fire risk. Another was concerned that lifestyle
block residents were unaware of the dangers of not clearing rank grass
and clippings from their property. These issues can be a challenge for fire
officers when educating residents’ appropriate behaviours relating to the
half-grapefruit sign:
“Lifestyle block people that are moving into a rural environment have no
interpretation or understanding of potential fire risks, or a limited number
have because they haven’t experience a rural environment. The message
we are trying to get to them is that you have to be extremely careful in the
environment you’re living in.”
Urban visitors to rural areas
The behaviour expected from urban visitors to rural areas, for example
holidaymakers, did not encourage as much discussion as the rural
residents and lifestyle block owners had. The participants associated the
behaviour of urban visitors with issues regarding fire restrictions and
permits rather than the half-grapefruit sign. This maybe because activities
that cause fire outbreaks amongst urban visitors are camping activities,
such as campfires and outdoor cooking. More importantly, officers saw this
behaviour related to permits and restrictions, rather than encouraging the
public to change their behaviour and activities in relation to the half-
grapefruit sign.
International visitors
There is doubt that international visitors understand what the half-
grapefruit signs mean, and as a result do not know how to regulate their
fire behaviour. One response was that there was ignorance amongst
international visitors as they had not seen the sign before and therefore did
not know what it meant. Another said they would be aware of the presence
of the sign, but not the behaviour they were expected to adhere to. This
group is a large recreational user of both of rural environments and
Department of Conservation lands. Reported fire outbreaks from
international visitors were from activities, such as roadside campfires and
burning toilet paper in the bush. A more sympathetic view from a
participant suggested the possibility of further education for international
visitors holidaying in rural areas:
“International guests - I think its something we haven’t addressed well in
regards to giving them the information they need, maybe in the different
languages they need it in and spelling out the rules for them in the
appropriate place.”
12

15. Despite the belief of some fire officers that international visitors were
unaware of the meaning of the sign, half of the participants thought that
visitors from western countries would have a better understanding. Three
participants said visitors from the United States, Canada and Australia
would recognise the half-grapefruit sign and realise what the ratings mean:
“I would expect Canadians, Americans and Australians for them at least to
have recognition that its fire danger and what it actually means.” One
officer did express concern about use of fire by individuals from different
countries. Australia was an example, where they often have ‘extreme’ fire
danger but fire is still used frequently in these conditions as a tool to
reduce the amount of slash and litter in the forest, thereby reducing the
ultimate fire danger.
Clarity of public understanding
The discussion turned towards to whether the fire officer’s thought the
public were clear or confused with the messages they were trying to
transmit with the half-grapefruit sign. Five of the participants responded
that they thought the sign was clear with the messages it was trying to
transmit. For those who did consider the message was clear, some still
expressed doubt with how much the public understood the sign: “I don’t
think they’re [the public] confused, but I don’t think we’ve given it good
clarity.” This clarity considered to be how people should modify their fire
use in correlation to the signs rating system. The same participant
continued to say, “They understand that there is a continuum of ‘low’ to
‘extreme’ and all the way along there are fires that start easier and
develop faster.” The public was considered to be unaware that the sign
was also supposed to be a representation of the level of difficulty fire
authorities will have putting out fires when the arrow is on a specific rating.
The cost and resources associated with extinguishing fires was considered
to be greater when an outbreak was in an ‘extreme’ environment rather
than in ‘moderate’ environment. When discussed, the majority of
participants agreed the public was unaware of this. No participants said
that the sign was clear in instructing the public what behaviour they should
conform to when the arrow was on a specific rating. One participant
thought the half-grapefruit sign was not trying to define or instruct on
specific behaviour in each of the ratings, rather its purpose was to be a
general indicator of danger:
“The only message it really transmits is that when its ‘very high’ to
‘extreme.’ It will be open to public interpretation…I think that’s all the board
is potentially providing. I think its drawing a long straw. ‘Because if it’s in
‘moderate’ its OK to have a brazier on the beach.’ I don’t think the board is
trying to explain that to people, it’s just trying to say when the arrows in
‘very high’ to ‘extreme’ you need to be careful…In terms of consequences
or issues surrounding suppression, I don’t think they would have any
idea…I think there is no way the general public would have an
interpretation of that or we should be necessarily trying to convey that, its
to cluttered of a message.”
13

16. 5.1.4 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating
Three participants stated that the public should be more observant of their
surroundings as the arrow moves around the sign. It was hoped that the
public would be more conservative with the use of fire as the arrow moved
along the ratings. The participants talked about how the public should
behave when they see the sign in general, rather than their individual
ratings: “I think from a behavioural point of view I guess what we are
hoping to achieve is awareness [of fire danger].” There lacked a clear
definition of the behaviour expected from the public on each individual
rating from ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and ‘extreme.’ Two
participants briefly touched on the behaviour expected for each of the
ratings; they associated ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ with an open fire season,
where it was reasonably safe to burn. ‘High’ through to ‘extreme’ was
associated with a restricted fire season; the ideal behaviour expected from
the public was that they should be aware that there were fire restrictions or
prohibitions in place:
“As you climb from ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ then the public needs to be aware
that there are most likely some sort of restrictions in place that requires
them to have permits or they aren’t allowed to do something in relation to
fire and so they should seek advice from their fire authority.”
Specific activities
This participant then discussed his opinion, “I don’t think we’ve
communicated the meaning of ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and
‘extreme’ to the public…I think the public has a really coarse awareness of
it.” Another explained the need for the public to apply for a fire permit when
the arrow was on ‘high,’ ‘very high’ and ‘extreme’ as the environmental
changes (as notified by the different fire danger ratings) would affect the
behaviour of fire. He further explained, “The public needs to be aware of
those signs and if they’re indicating in that high to extreme, one thing is
they shouldn’t be lighting fires without a permit.”
The participants were given examples of fires that could be lit by the public
and were told to explain under what level of fire danger rating they would
be allowed. There was a great variance in responses. For lighting a
bonfire on the beach, three responded that they were not allowed under
any of the ratings on the half-grapefruit sign. The fire officers were
uncertain of what activities would be allowed in relation to the half-
grapefruit signs rating system. Two replied that they may allow the lighting
of a bonfire on the beach when the arrow is on ‘low’ or ‘moderate.’ Another
two said it would be allowed in all of the sections of the sign, it was up to
the public to monitor its safety: “It’s quite possible they’ll be allowed in all
sections. It’s depending on how long the fire environment puts the fire
danger into a category.” This fire officer did further explain how the public
was supposed to estimate how long the arrow had been on a rating in
order to make this judgement.
14

17. Campfires were seen as a matter related to restricted and prohibited fire
seasons: “Its allowed until we put a total fire ban on,” and “It would be safe
anytime that there’s not a prohibited fire season.” One participant said they
were not allowed in his district, two said they should only be lit when the
arrow was on the ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ section. This contrasted with another
participant who said:
“At the moment its allowed under any of those ratings…people I guess
believe its their right, its been done for years…As long as they’ve taken
precautions, cleared an area around what they intend to burn and they put
the fire out, then its not an issue.”
The mixed responses continued with the example of a thermette at a
roadside picnic area. All, apart from one participant said they were allowed
in all of the fire danger ratings on the sign. In contrast one participant said:
“Normally thermette fires have been deemed to be fires in the open air, so
restrictions apply.” Another participant said, “Even when we go to a
restricted fire season it’s [the thermette] not a permitted activity.” Two
participants said they were allowed in the ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ ratings of the
sign. Three of the participants were not concerned with activities relating to
thermettes. Another three thought they were a fire risk, and should be
used with caution.
Two participants considered a brazier in a backyard acceptable in the ‘low’
to ‘high’ rating, while one thought low to moderate was appropriate.
Another participant thought the individual required a permit in Department
of Conservation areas, but in other districts they may have an open fire
season and “generally its free burning.” Another participant said that
braziers were illegal, as they are open fires. If they were on a concrete pad
sheltered from strong winds, they would be “acceptable but not desirable.”
Outdoor gas heaters had the most accepting response. All but one of the
participants said that they would be allowed in all of the ratings on the
sign. The participant, who thought that gas heaters should not be allowed
in all of the ratings, said it would be allowed up to ‘high,’ possibly ‘very
high.’ Gas was not seen as not being much of a threat in causing fire
outbreaks: “I don’t have any problem with gas appliances…gas fires are
seen as the safer option,” remarked one officer.
In summary, fire officers did not provide definitive instructions regarding
what behaviour was acceptable in each of the half-grapefruit sign ratings.
The examples of behaviour from the public were discussed in relation to
restricted and prohibited fire seasons, rather than the half-grapefruit sign.
5.1.5 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable
environments
The frequency of arrow changes
15

18. The participants were asked how frequently they changed the arrow on the
half-grapefruit sign. Three responded that they changed the sign regularly,
which meant in their cases from once or twice a week: “On a regular basis
we change them weekly, on a Thursday prior to the weekend.” One
participant stated that in areas of high intensity fire use, such as forests
they should be changed daily. He was unsure if this was a reality. In
contrast to this, other responses seemed to suggest a more casual attitude
towards changing the arrow on the signs. No other participants stated a
specific time of day that they changed the signs in their district. A popular
view was that instead of implementing a specific day to change the sign, it
should be moved in relation to changes in the environment. Five
participants stated that environmental changes as influenced how
frequently they moved the arrow: “Small fluctuations [in the season] we
wouldn’t change the sign, but a rain event that depressed the fire danger
for a number of days we would change the sign.” He said that the signs
should be changed daily, but due to practicalities, they probably were not.
The participant, who changed the sign on a specific day every week, said
he would change the sign “any other time we identify that the fire
environment changes dramatically.”
Fig. 2: The half – grapefruit sign in a rural environment (Graphic from
Ensis fire research photo CD).
Desired frequency of arrow changes
When asked their opinion on how frequently they think the signs should be
changed, two participants said they would like to see them changed daily.
Three participants thought that the signs should be changed in relation to
seasonal variations in the weather: “When the conditions change to the
point when we’ve had a change in the environment that will affect the fire
danger for a few days.” Another remarked, “It would be nice to change
them in relation to the changes in the fire environment.” The main concern
16

19. was that constantly changing the arrow on the sign according to
fluctuations in the weather would confuse the public. One participant
commented that the activity of the arrow should be a gradual shift, not just
a reflection of the fire danger in a twenty four-hour period. One participant
said that when the arrow is not updated in periods of abrupt weather
change, it can cause the public to question the knowledge of the fire
authority:
“Its frustrating to see one set on ‘high’ when you’re driving past and its
pouring with rain…foreign visitors are not going to trust something that
says ‘very high’ fire danger when its pouring with rain.”
Another participant agreed that the signs should be updated in relation to
changes in the weather. The problem pointed out was when in seasons of
‘low’ fire danger the arrow had been on ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ for a long
period. The public would begin to doubt the accuracy of the information on
the sign: “People like to see the arrow moving…if people don’t see the
arrow moving they tend to think that we’re not monitoring it.” One
participant remarked “The biggest feedback that I’ve got is that if the board
is not updated, it makes a bit of a mockery of the board. I think updating
[the signs] are critical.” It was thought by another participant that the public
should not witness the signs on the incorrect rating for example, when the
rating is on high and the fire danger is ‘low’ and conversely they should not
see the signs on ‘low’ when the fire danger is high. It was thought this
would send an “extremely mixed message” to the public, and they may
question the point of having the half-grapefruit sign.
5.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits
5.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions
The participants unanimously agreed that the fire restrictions and permits
were aimed at the general public rather than one group. Four participants
stated they were targeted at the public, while two specified they were
aimed at individuals intending to burn. The remaining participant said they
were aimed at the land owners within that authority or fire district.
When examining what behaviour the public should adhere to in a restricted
fire area, the replies varied. There lacked consistency in the responses
about how the public should behave. Recommended advice for the public
and issues regarding their confusion with restricted areas and permits
were discussed. Two participants replied that in a restricted fire season,
there should be no fires without a permit. This was the vital piece of
information regarding public behaviour. The public’s fire activities are
restricted by whether they have a permit and therefore lawful permission to
light a fire. The public were presumed by the participants to have previous
17

20. knowledge about restricted fire seasons, and therefore already know what
behaviour was appropriate.
One participant commented that the public should generally act
responsibly. This could be interpreted differently by the individual, who
may have limited knowledge about fire restrictions compared to those who
have experience with fire. Another participant hoped the public would be
more aware of anything “suspicious” in the area. This was also a general
instruction that was open to individual interpretation, rather than specific
behaviour the public should follow. Evidence in the participant’s responses
suggested that there was a certain amount of personal responsibility
expected from the public. The public were expected to actively seek the
information about the restricted fire season and permits by directly
contacting fire authorities: “People are expected essentially to ring the fire
authority and ask how we can direct them as how they are meant to
behave.” The problematic issue is that fire restrictions vary in different rural
districts. Three of the participants brought this up, suggesting difficulty
associated with educating the public about the requirements for a
restricted fire area where there was no common approach. One participant
pointed out that there are different rules for different fire authorities’ rural
areas. There cannot be a holistic campaign for restrictions, as there is no
consistency in the rules. One comment illustrated this:
“We have a restricted fire season, but we exempt crop residual burning…
the regional fire authorities have a standard set of guidelines…but don’t
follow the guidelines, then you’re outside the restriction and being
unlawful.”
Rules relating to restrictions and permits differ for individual rural districts.
Some participants cited this as a problem. One participant said, “in some
districts you don’t need a permit for a stubble fire. They could be burning
without a permit technically,” and that this was “a bit of a grey area.”
Another felt strongly about the differences in rules for individual rural
districts: “I don’t personally agree that we should have a 365 day
restriction…I think that’s taking the rights of the land user away.” He
pointed out that hypothetically a fire restriction could be in place when
there is snow on the ground. A fire restriction in these types of weather
conditions seemed to be unnecessary. Members of the public maybe
unaware that they were not allowed to light an un-permitted fire in
conditions where it might seem highly unlikely that a fire would get out of
control. There seems to lack a clear, concise message for the public
regarding how they should behave in restricted areas. It is assumed that
the public already has previous knowledge of what is required of them
when entering a restricted fire area.
5.2.3 Communication of fire restrictions
There was divided opinion among the participants who made use of fire
restriction signs, newspaper ads and websites. One participant thought the
18

21. public used all of these mediums, that visitors would listen to the radio, that
most farmers have internet access and those intending to burn would look
in the local newspapers. Three of the participants thought that the fire
authorities themselves would use fire restriction communication such as
signs, newspaper advertisements and websites to find out what the fire
danger and seasons were. The remaining half predominately thought that
farmers, those wishing to dispose of rubbish and lifestyle block residents
would make use of fire restriction communication. It was widely thought by
participants that those who already lived in the rural environment would be
more aware of fire restrictions and their meaning. “Someone who uses fire
more regularly than someone else as a land management tool will be
more motivated to look for those sort of messages,” said one participant.
He suggested farmers were the main group who would look in newspapers
for public restriction notices.
When discussing forms of communication that were more effective than
others in advertising restrictions, these mediums were discussed: radio,
newspapers and the internet. It was clear that some participants thought
that the radio was not effective at advertising restrictions and bans: “We
don’t think we get a good thing with radio.” While other participants thought
radio was the most effective way to get the message across, especially to
rural residents. One participant commented that radio works because
“everyone listens to the radio at some point in the day.” While another
participant, who promoted radio advertising, commended the efforts of the
Nelson region’s use of radio. They get high profile sportsmen and
community figures to support their publicity campaign.
The fire authorities often put advertisements in both rural and urban
newspapers regarding restrictions and fire bans. Newspaper advertising
was thought to reach all audiences by the majority of the participants.
Three of the responses referred to how this was the most effective tool to
reach rural residents, “I think the farming community are probably more
likely to read the farming news weeklies or monthlies.” Larger metropolitan
newspapers and smaller rural publications advertise restricted and
prohibited fire seasons. One community was used to seeing the notices
about restrictions in the local newspaper. When the regular restriction
notice was not put in the newspaper the local fire officer got calls from
concerned public to ask if there were restrictions in place. Importance was
placed by the fire officers on reaching rural residents with information
about restrictions, as they were thought to be the group most likely to carry
out burnings in rural areas. The participants thought the newspaper was
the medium that would effectively transmit messages to rural residents:
“They tend to read the paper…they’re used to historically seeing it in there
so it’s a reference point for them. I think that’s probably the best medium
considering the target.”
Discussion of the internet as a medium for alerting the public of
restrictions and prohibitions had a variety of conflicting thoughts. The
National Rural Fire Authorities internet website details the daily fire
19

22. weather, season and restrictions amongst other information regarding rural
fire districts in New Zealand. One participant saw this as a positive move
forward in embracing the internet. The internet was seen as a fast and
effective tool to transmit and receive information. The participant said he
knew many farmers already utilising the NRFA’s (National Rural Fire
Authority) website. Another participant also saw the internet as a medium
that is rapidly being accepted by the rural community. He said that most
farmers have internet access, and it is an easily available method for
informing them of fire seasons. Not all participants saw the internet as the
best method for reaching the public, it can limit the audience it reached. It
was suggested in one interview that a recorded message on a telephone
line, informing people of the local fire conditions would be better than the
internet. The participant went on to say that the internet ‘has its place,’ but
not at his point as it is not effective enough to reach the widely dispersed
rural communities. His response was in conflict with the internet as a tool
to reach the rural community:
“The web’s a tool that everyone talks about, but if you look at the average
age of a farmer being fifty plus, possibly not even computer literate and
certainly in a semi – remote area where dial ups required…downloading
and speed time is terrible. The hope of him coming home in his lunch hour
to check the fire restrictions, he’s more likely to call someone.”
It was discussed whether the public was clear or confused by the
information presented in the different mediums. Four participants agreed
that there was some confusion from the public regarding the messages of
fire restrictions and prohibitions. Another participant commented that the
biggest problem is how the National Rural Fire Authority is communicating
with those living in the rural/urban interface, especially lifestyle block
residents: ‘I think we’re still grappling with that.’ One participant thought the
public generally understood that a restriction meant they needed a permit
for fires, but they were confused about the jurisdiction boundaries: “The
confusion comes in when one authority’s restricted and another is open
and they don’t know what jurisdiction they’re in.” In opposition to this
remark, one participant said that there was no confusion between the
restricted and prohibited season, and the rural community are aware they
required a permit in a restricted season. Three participants thought that a
variety of mediums needed to be used to target the different groups of the
public who are exposed to the rural environment. One suggestion was to
have public notices in the newspapers backed up by radio campaigns.
Another participant said, instead of placing ads about fire restrictions he
tried to build news items out of fire events to bring the messages to the
front page of newspapers. He thought that through creating news stories
that reached the front page of the newspapers, the message was not lost
in a fire restriction ad in the back page. One participant was pleased with
the efforts of the National Rural Fire Authority, saying ‘the message is
greater toady than it was ten years ago; we are getting better at informing
the public on restrictions.’ Two participants were not sure if the public were
confused, but were conscious that different methods need to be used in
20

23. the media to educate the public about restrictions and prohibitions, such a
brochure drops in electricity bills and rates.
5.3 National Publicity Campaign
5.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign
The messages of the current Bernie campaign are ‘if you see smoke dial
111,’ came up in four responses. ‘General awareness,’ ‘keep it green,’ and
‘being conscious of fire danger’ were each mentioned twice. ‘Awareness of
fire seasons,’ ‘safe fire use,’ ‘to get a fire permit,’ and the ‘fire danger
indicator board’ were each mentioned once. The slogans of the campaign
were seen as positive behavioural messages by most of the participants. It
was believed that short, sharp messages which was easily absorbed and
that jogged the consciousness of the public were the way to educate about
fire danger. One participant said the message was aimed not just at the
farming community but also the urban resident, lifestyle block owner and
urban visitor. Suggestions came from several participants with
improvements that could be made to the campaign: a real life campaign
similar to the national drink driving campaign, or a more serious character
than Bernie. In relation to the cartoon character Bernie (who is a rural fire
manger depicted changing the arrows on the half-grapefruit sign) one
comment was that with the availability of 3D computer animation, the
graphics of the Bernie campaign need a “revamp.”
Fig. 3: New Zealand’s rural fire safety national publicity campaign.
(Graphic from NZRFA website).
21

24. There was a varied response when fire officers were asked whether the
Bernie campaign has been effective in representing the aims of the
National Rural Fire Authority. Four agreed that it had been effective, that it
increases the public’s awareness of fire risk, the half-grapefruit sign and
general fire danger. Three doubted its effectiveness, although it was
thought that Bernie and the campaign’s messages of fire awareness were
widely recognised by the public. According to one participant, “I think it [the
Bernie campaign] does need a redesign.” Two participants pointed out that
Bernie was deemed as a national campaign by some rural fire authorities,
and therefore they did not use the campaign in their publicity efforts on a
regional level. Some Rural Fire Authorities had set up their own marketing
campaigns more specifically targeting their local audience. The Bernie
campaign was seen an informing the national public, but more information
was seen to be needed to target locals in rural areas. One participant said
that the promotional material was not used by many on a local level and
were not very satisfied with the marketing campaign:
“A concern I have, it’s [the Bernie campaign] not always promoted by rural
fire authorities in the region…some of them in the regions would rather
see the money that’s going into this campaign given to the regions to see
what they can do for marketing. That’s the feeling I get because I’m talking
to all these rural fire authorities all the time.”
In another interview, the evidence of this claim became apparent when a
participant said, “We don’t use it [the Bernie campaign]…We use our own
local paper and our own media releases to the local papers.” Despite this,
the Bernie campaign is still seen on national television, so his messages
are being transmitted to the public at a large scale.
5.3.2 Public reliance on emergency services
The Bernie campaign’s main message has been to dial 111 “when smoke
is seen.” The message has been updated to “if you see a wildfire dial 111.”
The campaign emphasises public reliance on emergency services, and
takes away responsibility of actions from the public or individual who may
have caused the wildfire. The responsibility of cost control lies with the
individual who started the fire. The majority of the participants thought the
message to dial 111 was an appropriate instruction for the public;
however, five had observations relating to this. Two participants
commented that the message was reactive, rather than preventative. The
key to stop wildfire is to prevent people lighting fires during high fire
danger. The message to dial 111 was about detection, and that they
needed to be more directed at prevention of fires. A participant agreed that
the majority of the public are unaware that they are liable for the cost of
putting out a fire. An individual who may have accidentally started a fire will
be liable for the costs it takes the fire authorities to extinguish the fire. The
participant remarked that incorporating financial enforcement could be
used as a preventive measure in the campaign to discourage people
lighting fires in fire danger areas. Another two participants said that the
22

25. campaign needed to be more specific, as the message to dial 111 has
increased false alarm callouts for rural fire authorities:
“We’ve also got to consider the fire brigades that turn out to these things
and the fact that they’re employed, that they’re leaving their place of work
and that their employer is suffering...It certainly has the fire brigades
running around in circles a lot of the time.”
Despite this, the same participant observed that the only downside to the
message is that there are “a lot of people ringing in reporting smoke from
a distance,” rather than people checking to see if it is a controlled burn, for
example by a farmer. He thought the message was “not specific at all,”
and merely reporting smoke from a distance can be misleading. Another
participant remarked that although he appreciated it takes time and money
to develop campaigns, he thought there needed to be research done on
how the message can be more effectively delivered, and which groups
should be targeted. The message with Bernie needed to be “streamlined”
and “tidied up” from year to year. Three participants stated that the
message was ‘good’ and that the campaign is getting people to dial 111,
which is exactly what they wanted the public to do. One participant said
that ten or even five years ago locals in the community were calling his
home phone number when there was a fire outbreak. He saw the shift of
the public calling a central emergency number as a positive effect from the
campaign. This issue came up in a previous interview, where the
participant said that there are members of the public who are still reluctant
to call the emergency services:
“Our goal should be that everybody is prepared to pick up a phone and
dial 111 without thinking that they are putting somebody out, either their
local volunteer fire brigade or paid fire service.”
5.3.4 Opinions on the “Bernie” campaign
The cartoon character Bernie was popular with the majority of participant’s.
During four of the interviews, it was commonly thought that Bernie was
effective as a communicator of fire safety, as he was widely recognised by
the public as related to fire safety. As the Bernie character has been in the
media since 1992, he was seen by the participants as a familiar character
for the public to relate to fire danger. One reply was that the aim of the
campaign had been to ‘instil in the public consciousness that he [Bernie] is
New Zealand’s national fire symbol.’ The participants thought it was
important that the public associated Bernie with the half-grapefruit sign.
The participants with positive responses about the campaign thought that
the Bernie character has been successful in this respect. Two participants
had reservations about the Bernie character in the campaign. One
participant had concerns that the message was being ‘dummed down’ by
have a cartoon character as the face of the national campaign: “Cartoon
characters are good for children, adults need to have something a little bit
more specific.” He reasoned that people do not necessarily take a cartoon
23

26. character seriously and the message needs to be more realistic and
“harder hitting” to influence peoples perceptions of the issue. He thought
more publicity should focus on the penalties associated with accidental or
intended fire outbreaks:
“People need to understand that they could be looking at billion dollars
worth of losses. To me a cartoon character doesn’t convey that
message...If you see someone rocking up to you with an $100,000 bill for
a fire that you lit and it took $100,000 to put out, that to me is a real hard
hitting message that a lot of landowners don’t understand.”
Another participant said that he had previous reservations about the
Bernie character, but the National Rural Fire Authorities national survey
(TNS Research 2006) had shown that the character was well recognised.
The survey served as evidence to the participant that the marketing
campaign and Bernie had been successful. However, he was still
concerned that the character was outdated.
When fire officers where asked how much faith they had in the Bernie
campaign, a more personalised response was received. Five had an
opinion relating to how there could be changes with the character and
campaign: “To me it’s probably run its course. I’d like to see a different
approach...change the message a little bit more, to being more
preventative rather than reactive.” Another participant said he did not use
the campaign material and that Bernie was good on a national scale, but
not specific enough on a localised level. In places like Canterbury for
example, which has a higher frequency of wildfire events than other
regions, some participants thought rural fire authorities had to be more
specialised with local fire danger advertising. To reinforce this, another
participant said they had more faith in the regional publicity efforts of the
Canterbury fire authority than they did in the Bernie campaign. Another
participant thought this also, saying that the campaign was good on a
national level, but “very much focused on forests…the majority of funding
comes from the forestry sector,” and this funding has influenced the
messages of the campaign. The participant went on to say that the
campaign is supported by the National Rural Fire Authority, DOC and has
funding from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. This input from the
sponsors changes the emphasis of the campaign, so it is more aligned
with preventive fire behaviour in forests. In contrast to these opinions, one
participant fully agreed that the Bernie campaign was “money well spent”
as it educated the public from children to adults about the half-grapefruit
on a national level. Another participant who had also seen the National
Rural Fire Authorities 2006 survey (TNS Research 2006) agreed that the
campaign should not be changed, as it had been run for such a long
period that the public now associated Bernie with fire danger. “It would be
very hard to see if there’s further improvement,” said the participant.
However, he then discussed how there should be continual research on
the national campaign:
24

27. “I think you would need to be very conscious and monitor it. Conscious
and continuing to do a lot of research in terms of actually target audience
cut through and the like to make sure we are validating behavioural
response.”
5.4 General Questions
5.4.1 Other publicity initiatives for promoting fire awareness
Rural Fire Authorities often took other publicity initiatives to promote fire
awareness. Four constructed newspaper articles for local newspapers.
Three of the participants used pamphlet drops in letterboxes and rate
demands: “I think the pamphlets are a good cheap way of focusing your
attentions, you can put things on TV and everyone will see them, but most
people it won’t apply to.” Three participants also mentioned this use of a
publicity officer to directly talk to the media and inform them of regional
issues relating to fire danger. They also used spokespeople to encourage
media coverage of newsworthy events relating to wildfires and fire danger.
One participant said that he and his local team approached individuals
who had recently moved into the area and campers over the busy New
Year’s period and spoke to them about the fire danger and consequences
of inappropriate actions.
5.4.2 The half- grapefruit sign and arson fire starts
The discussion moved onto whether the half-grapefruit sign ratings would
serve to inform and therefore encourage arson fire starts. For example
when the arrow is on extreme, it could alert a potential arsonist that a fire
could cause a lot of damage. Four participants disagreed that the sign
would result in an increase in arson behaviour:
“No…I don’t think they’ll [the arsonists] rely on a sign to tell them that. If
the grass is crunchy underfoot then they’ll know to drop a match and it will
burn.”
Another remarked, “I don’t think personally that the half-grapefruit sign
would contribute to arson at all…simple answer no, I don’t think it
contributes.” Three of the participants did not completely agree with this
view, that indeed the sign could make arsonists aware of favourable fire
conditions. Two participants both said it was a “catch twenty two situation,”
that when you try to educate the public to be careful in certain fire ratings,
you also send a message to encourage the arsonist: “If we advertise it to
much you encourage more people than you discourage.” While another
participant in response said he felt that when they put news items in the
newspaper it does increase the level of arson fires. He then went on to
say:
25

28. “I suspect we would be better not to do so much publicity when its extreme
and work on the fact that we’ve educated the public already than to drag
the arsonists out of the woodwork.”
5.4.3 Final comments
The selection of final comments was on fire danger warning
communication. One participant suggested that the message should be
more specific when the fire danger rating was on ‘high’ to ‘extreme’. This
may mean giving the public more information on how they should alter
their behaviour when the arrow is on a certain rating. Another comment
was that there were many groups that needed educating about fire danger,
especially international visitors and lifestyle block residents. The
involvement of local councils working in conjunction with the Rural Fire
Authorities was seen as an important factor in delivering messages to the
public. There was a suggestion that the Rural Fire Authority should look at
developing the Bernie campaign into a “library” of concepts that could be
changed. This was thought to be more beneficial than putting emphasis on
using the kit of promotional material. One participant who was originally
positive towards Bernie later stated, “I think we can do a lot better,” in
educating the public with fire danger communication. He enthusiastically
suggested the use of electronic fire danger boards, similar to the Transit
New Zealand boards that had been used previously for fire warnings. The
boards could be more specific to the geographical area, for example
‘extreme fire danger through the Lewis Pass-beware.’
26

29. 6. Discussion
6.1 Fire Danger Warning Signs
6.1.1 The purpose, intention and effectiveness of the half-
grapefruit sign
Bones (2006) stated that the main way that fire danger is communicated to
the public in New Zealand is through the half-grapefruit signs. In Bones’
analysis, she considered that the issue was that the meanings of the five
ratings on the sign are ambiguous on their own (2006).
The interviews of fire officers carried out and reported in sections one to
five of this report revealed that as fire authorities they saw the sign as a
general warning, rather than giving specific messages to the public on how
they public should behave with each rating. The fire officer’s
understanding of the half-grapefruit sign was that it depicts ignition rates
and the associated risks of fire starts. It was perceived as a tool to educate
the public about the chance of a fire starting in a specific area. The
purpose of the half-grapefruit sign was considered to be to inform the
public of associated problems that fire authorities face controlling fire
starts, and that the costs and resources required would increase as the
arrow moved up the ratings. However, only two fire officers pointed out the
signs dual purpose to inform the level of risk of a wild bushfire and the
associated problems this would mean for fire authorities. The half-
grapefruit sign was referred to as a holistic warning system. It’s ratings
were not referred to individually when fire officers were asked about the
signs purpose and intention. The half-grapefruit sign was seen as a scale
to indicate fire danger, an indicator board to warn the public. Two
participants were concerned that the public lacked understanding of the
individual rating system used on the half-grapefruit sign. This serves as
evidence to support Bone’s previous statement. There were no consistent
responses when the fire officers were asked to specifically define the
individual ratings ‘low,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘high,’ ‘very high,’ and ‘extreme.’ The
majority related ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ as intending to show it was an open
fire season. The problem with this is the half-grapefruit signs ratings do not
show any information regarding restricted and prohibited fire seasons. Fire
authorities would know that these ratings mean it was an open fire season,
but there is no information on the sign to inform the public of this. This
reports predicted hypothesis is that the majority of the public would be
unaware that the half-grapefruit signs ratings relate to an open, restricted
or prohibited fire season. The general response for the ‘low’ and
‘moderate’ ratings was that there were low ignition rates when the arrow
was on these ratings and thus reasonably safe to light a fire. The
27

30. information seemed too general for the public to predict fire behaviour and
assess the safety levels of lighting a fire. This meant it was the up to the
individual to decide if it was safe to light a fire. It would be inaccurate to
assume that the public would be knowledgeable enough on fire activity to
decide if it was ‘reasonably safe’ or not. The half-grapefruit sign does not
give enough specific information on what the conditions of fire behaviour
are expected for each of the ratings. Each individual’s knowledge on fire
will vary. Individual’s opinions on what rating it would be ‘reasonably safe’
to light a fire in will also differ. The fire officers thought that the ratings
‘high’ and ‘very high’ illustrated to the public that fires were easily ignitable
and that fire fighters had a short time to control fire outbreaks. ‘Extreme’
was thought to show that there should be no fires lit, which would in effect
be a prohibited season (also know as a fire ban). There is no information
on the sign that would educate the public that ‘extreme’ meant that no fires
should be lit. It was assumed that the public would know that ‘extreme’
meant a prohibited fire season and therefore would already know not to
use fire. The problem is fire activity can vary for individuals, some may not
know that not putting out a cigarette properly could be considered an
ignitable activity, or that a brazier was considered to be an open fire.
Bones (2006) also discussed how publicity needs to be provided to ensure
that the public is aware that an individual who is found responsible for an
accidental or deliberately lit fire will be held liable for the cost of controlling
that fire. The fire officers agreed that the public was not aware of this. They
agreed that it could deter more ignitions if it was used in publicity. The
participants thought there was a lack of public awareness and that the
half-grapefruit sign stands for how difficult it will be for authorities to
extinguish fires.
6.1.2 Behavioural differences regarding rural residents, lifestyle
block residents, urban visitors and international visitors
A case study was conducted in California to illustrate the behavioural
differences of groups in relation to fire danger communication (Gardener et
al cited in Bones 2006). In the community studied, it was found that fire
danger awareness increased over the time of living in an area, especially
when communities had been effected by fire. However, overtime a
“dampening effect” can occur, when communities can become complacent
when fire activity has not occurred for a period of time (Garderner et al
cited in Bones 2006). These findings were also found in the discussions
with the fire officers. Fire officers were of the opinion that rural residents,
specifically farmers had the greatest understanding of what the signs
meant due to their prolonged time living in the rural environment and
having more experience with fire outbreaks. The rural residents (farmers)
were presumed to have the greatest knowledge about fire danger in
comparison to lifestyle block residents, urban visitors and international
visitors. Despite supposedly having greater knowledge, the fire officers
thought that since the rural community constantly saw the half-grapefruit
signs they had become blasé about the message of the sign. The
28

31. participants thought that along with knowledge of the environment comes
greater confidence, and many farmers had experience in using fire as a
tool. It was sometimes overconfidence and controlled burns by farmers
which got out of control that had resulted in fire outbreaks. It was expected
that farmers would use fire as a tool on their property. In some cases,
farmers would try knowingly to burn in a restricted season without a permit.
Fire officers thought that rural residents would take the half-grapefruit sign
less seriously than the other groups, as they were so familiar with it.
In comparison to rural residents, the fire officers saw lifestyle block owners
as having less knowledge of fire danger and understanding of fire.
Lifestyle block residents were thought to have moved from predominately-
urban areas into rural areas. The opinion was that lifestyle block residents
had not experienced fire as frequently as rural residents had and therefore
would have less understanding of the half-grapefruit sign messages. The
behaviours that could cause fire outbreaks on lifestyle block properties
were planting flammable vegetation, not leaving a defensible space and
burning off cuts when unaware of the fire dangers rating in the area.
Issues with those already dwelling in rural land and the rural/urban
interface were discussed in more depth than urban visitors and
international visitors. This could be because participants pointed out that
often fire outbreaks in rural areas were controlled burns that simply got out
of hand. The issue was considered to be the need to deal with those
already using fire as a tool on their properties than visitors to rural areas.
When discussing temporary visitors to rural areas, their actions were
discussed in relation to restrictions and permits rather than monitoring their
behaviour in relation to the signs. The participants expressed doubt about
how many international visitors understood the half-grapefruit sign and
what it meant. It was thought there needed to be more specialised
education targeted towards international visitors, as well as lifestyle block
residents and urban visitors. A suggestion from one participant was that
brochures and other media material should be put in hired vehicles,
backpackers and motels in a variety of languages for international guests.
Visitors from Australia, Canada and the United States were believed to
have some background knowledge about the half-grapefruit sign due to
similar systems in their countries. The problem is that fire behaviour in
these countries can vary. The use of fire as a tool could be more widely
used. As example given by a participant was in the outback where
campfires were used in extremely hot conditions.
Overall, the fire officers thought the half-grapefruit sign was clear with the
messages it was trying to transmit. The critique was that the public may
have a different perception of what the half-grapefruit sign means. The
participants pointed out the lack of public understanding of what the
ratings individually mean and the lack of clarity of the half-grapefruit signs
messages amongst the public. Participants agreed that the public is
unaware that they will have to pay the cost of putting out a fire they may
have accidentally started. The public do not know what behaviour is
29

32. allowed in each of the ratings of the sign, and take the sign as a general
indicator of ignition rates in current weather conditions only.
The New Zealand Fire Service’s annual survey results (TNS Research
2006) reported that 83% of those surveyed have recalled seeing the half-
grapefruit sign. Those who were most likely to have recalled seeing a fire
danger sign were aged between 35-44 years old, be New Zealand
European, own their own home and have a household income between
$50,000 - $74,999 or over $75,000. This survey only illustrates that people
have recalled seeing the half-grapefruit sign. There are significant groups
in the national population had a low recall of the half-grapefruit sign,
including urban residents in Auckland, Maori, Pacific Islanders and those
aged between 25-34 years old. It did not investigate if the public knows
what behaviour they are meant to adhere to with individual fire danger
ratings. The New Zealand Fire Service funded the survey and therefore it
is possible the TNS had no incentive to probe or ask critical questions that
could make their clients message look flawed. The New Zealand Fire
Service have taken the survey results as a confirmation that the half-
grapefruit signs were well recognised by the public (TNS Research 2006).
The public were not asked further questions regarding what behaviour
they thought the sign suggested or the meaning of the signs individual
ratings. There has been no research into how the public think they should
behave when they see the sign on a specific rating, or to the half-grapefruit
sign overall in rural areas. The group who were the most likely to recall
seeing the sign is a relatively privileged group in society who are most
likely have been highly educated. Many more specific groups need to be
targeted on what behaviour the half-grapefruit sign is asking the public to
adhere to.
6.1.3 Behaviour relating to the half-grapefruit signs rating
Bones (2006) stated that while it was unlikely that the half-grapefruit sign
was intended for the benefit of fire officers as the signs are meant to
prevent ignitions, the behaviour expected is left largely up to the observer.
The interview results supported this theory, as many of the participants
talked of the public confusion surrounding fire communication. The public
often contacted the rural fire authorities to ask when ‘fire bans were on,’
when there is no standard allocation times for bans. The fire officers said
the public were confused over the rules and regulations of an open,
restricted and prohibited fire season. Experiences in dealing directly with
the public confirmed that many were confused over who issued fire permits
and under what conditions a fire permit would be granted. A permit can
only be granted under threatening conditions, such as an outbreak of foot
and mouth disease. One fire officer said that when the arrow is set on
‘high’ through to ‘extreme’ the public should not light fires without a permit.
The majority of the public would be unaware that the half-grapefruit signs
are related to restricted and prohibited fire seasons and the need to obtain
a permit. The public would probably take the signs message in its most
simplified form that the likelihood of a fire getting out of control will
30

33. increase as the arrow moves along the ratings. There is no information on
the half-grapefruit sign about how the ratings are interconnected with the
restricted or prohibited fire season. The problem with associating the half-
grapefruit signs with restrictions and prohibitions is that there are separate
rural jurisdictions, each having separate fire authorities, who will decide
whether its is appropriate to instil a restricted or prohibited fire season.
There is no standardised behaviour for each region. There is no specific
time of year that a restriction or prohibition can be enforced, as it is
depended on the weather. Because of this, no information appears on the
sign about how individual ratings relate to restricted or prohibited season.
The information is subject to seasonal changes. Permanent messages
relating to how the public should behave in each rating should be
communicated. Bones (2006) considered that the public were confused
about how the sign relates to prohibited and restricted seasons. A fire
officer emphasised that the public needed to be aware that if the rating
was ‘high’ through to ‘extreme,’ that individuals should not be lighting fires
without a permit. During the interviews there were comments how the
public were confused how the signs related to ‘bans.’ This information is
not on the half-grapefruit sign and it is difficult to see how the public would
have easy access to information regarding how the sign’s ratings relate to
restrictions and permits.
Bones (2006) reported commented that the expected behaviour change
relating to the fire danger ratings is unclear. Equating a certain amount of
risk with a fire rating is not particularly useful as it is not clear what action
needs to be taken. It requires people to decide what actions are
associated with that risk and this can be variable (Bones 2006). The
interviewed participants discussed that the public should regard the sign
as a ‘general indicator’ of fire risk. The public were asked to be more
observant of their activities when they see the half-grapefruit sign. No
specific instructions were given on how they should adjust behaviour when
the arrow was on each of the individual ratings. Being more ‘conservative’
with fire use, as suggested by a participant, is a general instruction that
can be open to interpretation. There is no measure of behaviour that the
public should follow for each of the individual ratings. Fire officers believed
that the public have an understanding of the concept of the half-grapefruit
sign, but only a basic knowledge of what the individual rating system
meant. When asked to comment individually on the ratings, the fire
officer’s answers were not clearly defined. If there are no definite
standards of what behaviour is expected or appropriate for each of the
individual ratings, the public must have great difficulty evaluating their
behaviour in relation to the sign. Fire officers stated that the message they
were trying to portray was that under ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ ratings it is
relatively safe to have fire activity and from ‘high’ to ‘extreme’ ratings it is
dangerous to have fire activity. Bones (2006) questioned that it was
difficult to see what extra information the half-grapefruit signs offered apart
from this. The half-grapefruit signs were generally seen in a positive light
and a valuable signpost to alert the public of danger. One participant said
the science behind the sign was complicated and if the public were given
too much information, they would become confused. The fire officers
31

34. preferred short, sharp and simple forms of communication. The concern
with adding extra information or changing the sign from the fire officer’s
perspective was that the message might become too cluttered. A fire
officer admitted that they (the Rural Fire Authority) have not communicated
to the public the individual meanings of ‘low’ to ‘extreme.’
6.1.4 The frequency of changing the arrow in variable
environments
Bones (2006) reported that the half-grapefruit signs were supposed to
represent general fire conditions and not small fluctuations. Fire officers
were disinclined to change the sign to ‘low’ even if it was raining heavily,
because the public could think that it was an open season. This was
thought to cause mistrust and confusion among some members of the
public, who tended not to believe the signs if it appeared no one adjusted
them regularly. In relation to this argument, the participants thought that
the signs should be changed in alignment with seasonal weather
fluctuations. Two fire officers thought they should be changed daily, but
one did express concern over how practical this would be for fire
authorities. An individual had to physically drive to the signs and unlock
them. The reasoning behind updating the signs during changes in the
weather was that the fire officers received public scepticism regarding the
accuracy of the signs. The main feedback that the fire officers received
from the public were questions of whether the signs were updated
regularly. Some members of the public would then proceed to tell the fire
authorities the arrow was on the incorrect rating. For example, the problem
was that if the arrow was seen to be on ‘high’ to ‘extreme,’ while it had
been raining for a few days the public would be critical of the information
on the sign. Many fire officers agreed that this was frustrating, but it was a
difficult problem to address. One participant said that they do not want to
change the arrows frequently from one rating to another, as this would
confuse the public. Bones (2006) commented that the sign was to show
general fire conditions. To fire officers the issue of updating the sign was
critical in gaining the public’s trust. The public do like to see the arrow
moving on the sign to show that fire authorities are updating it. The
majority of participants updated the sign a ‘few’ times a week. Some took
down the signs in winter, when it was thought it was not needed due to
‘low’ fire risk. One participant encouraged the practice of taking down of
the signs during winter, so they would be more effective when they
appeared in the summer and autumn months under high fire danger.
32

35. 6.2 Fire Restrictions and Permits
6.2.1 Behaviour relating to fire restrictions
The public appears to be confused over restrictions and prohibitions: what
a fire ban means, how to get a permit and who issues them (Bones 2006).
The responses gathered from the interviews supported Bones’ claim. Fire
officers said the public were confused about fire restrictions, prohibitions
and permits. Clarification of the differences between a restricted and
prohibited fire season need to be communicated clearly to the public.
Currently a restricted fire season is when a permit is needed to light a fire.
In a prohibited season, all fire activity is banned including individuals who
have a permit for a fire.
Bones’ theory (2006) that the distinctions between fire restrictions and
bans are often blurred was an issue that also arose during the interviews.
The Department of Conservations 365 day restriction was an example of a
permanent restricted area. One participant did not agree with having
permanent restrictions as he considered that this was taking the rights of
land users away. Having a fire restriction in place when it was snowing did
not make sense to this fire officer. There were associated problems with
different rules regarding fire restricted seasons in different rural areas. One
fire officer commented that some districts allow stubble fires in a restricted
season without a permit, while at the same time of year another district will
enforce the restriction more strongly. As previously discussed, there
lacked consistency regarding the rules and regulations of restricted
seasons within individual rural districts.
The advice fire officers gave the public on how they should behave in a
restricted fire area were general instructions rather than meaningful
preventative actions. They ranged from becoming aware of anything
“suspicious” to “acting responsibly.” These generalised terms are left open
to the interpretation of the individual. The public’s definition of what is
‘suspicious’ or ‘responsible’ behaviour in a restricted fire area may differ
greatly from those of the fire authorities.
The evidence from the interviews suggests that fire officers expected a
certain amount of personal responsibility and previous knowledge
regarding fire prevention from the public. One fire officer said when in a
restricted season, the public was to call the fire authorities and ask how
they were meant to behave. The public was expected to do a personal
assessment to determine whether they thought their intended fire needed
a permit. The public would need previous knowledge of fire activity to
make an informed decision. The majority of the public, especially urban
visitors may not have this experience or background information to make
such a potentially dangerous decision. What is defined by fire authorities
as fire activity needing a permit may differ from the public’s perception of
what is a substantial fire activity. To some individuals a fire they plan to
light may not be seen as large enough to warrant an application for a
33

36. permit. If the activity is a small campfire, thermette or brazier the individual
may not see this as a potential danger to the environment and not apply
for a permit. Many members of the public might see applying for a permit
for an open fire barbeque on a beach as being too much of a lengthy
process or the event might be a spontaneous decision. There is the risk
that members of the public would either not see or ignore signs and
warnings of a restricted season, as they can get away with having an un-
permitted fire when authorities are not present. There is no sense of
unlawfulness surrounding the use of fire in a restricted season. If caught
there is the potential for the public to plead ignorance about how they were
unaware that there was a restriction or prohibition, due to the lack of
communication about restrictions and prohibitions aimed at the public. This
could be the feeling of confusion about what the definition of fire activity is
and what is not allowed in a restricted, prohibited and open season.
6.2.2 Communication of fire restrictions
The fire officers thought that both the public and fire authorities used fire
restriction communication signs and other publicity material. Rural
residents were thought by fire officers to have more understanding of what
a fire-restricted season meant than urban residents. In terms of the
mediums used, the most effective medium was thought to be the more
traditional methods, such as newspapers. The rural communities who used
fire as a larger scale tool for burn offs were seen as a target group who
would read the local newspapers and farming monthlies. The city
newspapers were seen to target the general urban public. The fire officers
commented that articles about fire outbreaks that were near the front of
the paper were far more effective at educating the public and increasing
awareness than advertisements about restrictions which were generally
hidden near the rear. Fire articles were seen as the most effective way at
gaining public attention. The Internet was seen as a positive move forward,
being a fast and ‘up to date’ way to post information regarding current fire
conditions. The problem was considered to be with accessibility to all
sections of the public. Many rural families have trouble with getting
connected and many farmers are not computer literate. In an urban sense,
it narrows the audience to those with a higher socio-economic standard of
living. International visitors and urban visitors cannot easily access the
Internet when travelling.
6.3 National Publicity Campaign
6.3.1 Messages and aims of the “Bernie” campaign
When transmitting information to the public, Bones (2006) reported how it
was best to assume no technical background on the subject, but this did
not mean to patronise the audience with childlike level of wording. The fire
34