100 S McKinnon, C Eriksen, and E de Vet
& Eriksen 2021; see also Booth 2020). As a result, survivors often assess the
value of destroyed or damaged objects in terms that are incompatible with
financialised models of insurable risk and loss.
In part, the disjuncture between value as defined by an insurer and by
a disaster survivor relates to discordant definitions of home. Geographer
Alison Blunt (2005, p. 506) defines home as ‘a material and an affective space,
shaped by everyday practices, lived experiences, social relations, memories
and emotions.’ While insurance may support the rebuilding of material
structures, its capacity to mitigate the impacts of disaster on the affective,
mnemonic, and emotional aspects of home is limited (Eriksen & de Vet 2020).
A home has the potential to act as a site of belonging (Gorman-Murray
2011), and the loss of home in disaster has troubling potential consequences
on mental health and emotional wellbeing (Camilleri et al. 2010). Faced
with the destruction of their home, bushfire survivors are unlikely to view
their loss as a purely financial one. In the days, weeks, and months after a
disaster, the assessment of monetary values by insurers, and the emotional
impacts of loss on householders, are an uneasy combination with significant
impacts on survivor wellbeing.
Bushfire-related insurance in Australia generally delineates between
‘home’ insurance, which relates to the material structures of a house, and
‘contents’ insurance, which relates to the possessions stored within the
house’s physical structure. This distinction between a building and the
objects within it contrasts with the ways in which a house and material possessions (along with the landscape where they are located) are intertwined
as critical elements in understandings of home as an affective space and
site of belonging (Blunt & Dowling 2006; Booth 2020; Hurdley 2013). Home
is created, in part, through ‘emotional encounters with domestic objects,
interiors and furnishings’ (Walker 2020, p. 13). Material objects displayed
in homes act as mnemonic anchors, creating a sense of shared identity for
members of the household by drawing on memories of shared interests or
experiences (de Vet, Eriksen & McKinnon 2021). Similarly, household items
connect to identities at broader scales, including to minority identities or
diasporic communities (McKinnon, Gorman-Murray & Dominey-Howes
2016; Tolia-Kelly 2004). Carrying cherished possessions between homes is
an important element of homemaking and allows for continued connections to the past (Pazhoothundathil & Bailey 2020). A fear for many disaster survivors is that the loss of belongings will destabilise the memories
and identities to which they are attached. This will, in turn, trouble feelings
of safety and security at home (Gorman-Murray, McKinnon & DomineyHowes 2014; McKinnon & Eriksen 2021). The consequences of this loss sit
outside insurable values.
According to Dowling and Mee (2007, p. 161), ‘Home is as much a process
as it is a thing.’ The process of homemaking, which includes both a home’s
creation and its maintenance, requires substantial investments of time and
labour. The ruin of a bushfire-destroyed home represents the loss of those
& Eriksen 2021; see also Booth 2020). As a result, survivors often assess the
value of destroyed or damaged objects in terms that are incompatible with
financialised models of insurable risk and loss.
In part, the disjuncture between value as defined by an insurer and by
a disaster survivor relates to discordant definitions of home. Geographer
Alison Blunt (2005, p. 506) defines home as ‘a material and an affective space,
shaped by everyday practices, lived experiences, social relations, memories
and emotions.’ While insurance may support the rebuilding of material
structures, its capacity to mitigate the impacts of disaster on the affective,
mnemonic, and emotional aspects of home is limited (Eriksen & de Vet 2020).
A home has the potential to act as a site of belonging (Gorman-Murray
2011), and the loss of home in disaster has troubling potential consequences
on mental health and emotional wellbeing (Camilleri et al. 2010). Faced
with the destruction of their home, bushfire survivors are unlikely to view
their loss as a purely financial one. In the days, weeks, and months after a
disaster, the assessment of monetary values by insurers, and the emotional
impacts of loss on householders, are an uneasy combination with significant
impacts on survivor wellbeing.
Bushfire-related insurance in Australia generally delineates between
‘home’ insurance, which relates to the material structures of a house, and
‘contents’ insurance, which relates to the possessions stored within the
house’s physical structure. This distinction between a building and the
objects within it contrasts with the ways in which a house and material possessions (along with the landscape where they are located) are intertwined
as critical elements in understandings of home as an affective space and
site of belonging (Blunt & Dowling 2006; Booth 2020; Hurdley 2013). Home
is created, in part, through ‘emotional encounters with domestic objects,
interiors and furnishings’ (Walker 2020, p. 13). Material objects displayed
in homes act as mnemonic anchors, creating a sense of shared identity for
members of the household by drawing on memories of shared interests or
experiences (de Vet, Eriksen & McKinnon 2021). Similarly, household items
connect to identities at broader scales, including to minority identities or
diasporic communities (McKinnon, Gorman-Murray & Dominey-Howes
2016; Tolia-Kelly 2004). Carrying cherished possessions between homes is
an important element of homemaking and allows for continued connections to the past (Pazhoothundathil & Bailey 2020). A fear for many disaster survivors is that the loss of belongings will destabilise the memories
and identities to which they are attached. This will, in turn, trouble feelings
of safety and security at home (Gorman-Murray, McKinnon & DomineyHowes 2014; McKinnon & Eriksen 2021). The consequences of this loss sit
outside insurable values.
According to Dowling and Mee (2007, p. 161), ‘Home is as much a process
as it is a thing.’ The process of homemaking, which includes both a home’s
creation and its maintenance, requires substantial investments of time and
labour. The ruin of a bushfire-destroyed home represents the loss of those