108 S McKinnon, C Eriksen, and E de Vet
impacts on mental health and escalating challenges to recovery processes
(de Vet & Eriksen 2020; Eriksen & de Vet 2020). Opaque insurance policies
and non-negotiable policy terms equally result in inequitable power dynamics between insurance companies and policyholders, often resulting in high
levels of distrust and uncertainty (Booth & Harwood 2016). Nonetheless,
the stories of bushfire survivors in New South Wales offer insights into the
agency of insured householders, and how uneven power structures, and
discordant understandings of home, are negotiated and reconstructed by
survivors post-fire. This is not to say that the actions of insurers do not, at
times, negatively impact recovery processes, or that insurance payouts are
unimportant to the ability to rebuild and recover. Rather, many bushfire
survivors draw emotional support from insurance providers, while also prioritising the non-monetary value of time and labour, along with the emotional, mnemonic, and affective value of material objects.
The impacts of climate change on the frequency and intensity of bushfires, along with growing populations in fire-prone landscapes, mean more
Australian households than ever before are at risk. Given Australia’s fiery
future, it is crucial to reconsider the neoliberal financialising of risk, so it
can more adequately address the needs of future disaster survivors. What
the bushfire survivor accounts examined in this chapter ultimately suggest,
is that disaster risk is more than monetary, and that the destruction of material structures and objects has impacts that resonate far beyond the monetary cost of rebuilding and replacing a house and its contents. Developing
and adequately resourcing support systems, which in addition to addressing
practical needs also meet the psychosocial needs of survivors, is essential
(Eriksen and de Vet 2020). An important step towards understanding these
needs is to comprehend both the value and cost of insurance to recovery
processes in more than monetary terms.
References
Baxter, R & Brickell, K 2014, ‘For home unmaking’, Home Cultures, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 133–143.
Blunt, Alison 2005, ‘Cultural geography: Cultural geographies of home’, Progress in
Human Geography, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 505–515.
Blunt, A & Dowling, R 2006, Home. New York, NY: Routledge.
Booth, K 2020, ‘Firescapes of disruption: An absence of insurance in landscapes
of fire’, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 525–544.
Booth, K & Harwood, A 2016, ‘Insurance as catastrophe: A geography of house and
contents insurance in bushfire-prone places’, Geoforum, vol. 69, pp. 4–52.
Booth, K & Tranter, B 2018, ‘When disaster strikes: Under-insurance in Australian
households’, Urban Studies, vol. 55, no. 14, pp. 3135–3150.
Camilleri, P, Healy, C, Macdonald, E.M, Nicholls, S, Sykes, J, Winkworth, G
& Woodward, M 2010, ‘Recovery from bushfires: The experience of the 2003
Canberra bushfires three years after’, Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 990383-1–990383-15.
impacts on mental health and escalating challenges to recovery processes
(de Vet & Eriksen 2020; Eriksen & de Vet 2020). Opaque insurance policies
and non-negotiable policy terms equally result in inequitable power dynamics between insurance companies and policyholders, often resulting in high
levels of distrust and uncertainty (Booth & Harwood 2016). Nonetheless,
the stories of bushfire survivors in New South Wales offer insights into the
agency of insured householders, and how uneven power structures, and
discordant understandings of home, are negotiated and reconstructed by
survivors post-fire. This is not to say that the actions of insurers do not, at
times, negatively impact recovery processes, or that insurance payouts are
unimportant to the ability to rebuild and recover. Rather, many bushfire
survivors draw emotional support from insurance providers, while also prioritising the non-monetary value of time and labour, along with the emotional, mnemonic, and affective value of material objects.
The impacts of climate change on the frequency and intensity of bushfires, along with growing populations in fire-prone landscapes, mean more
Australian households than ever before are at risk. Given Australia’s fiery
future, it is crucial to reconsider the neoliberal financialising of risk, so it
can more adequately address the needs of future disaster survivors. What
the bushfire survivor accounts examined in this chapter ultimately suggest,
is that disaster risk is more than monetary, and that the destruction of material structures and objects has impacts that resonate far beyond the monetary cost of rebuilding and replacing a house and its contents. Developing
and adequately resourcing support systems, which in addition to addressing
practical needs also meet the psychosocial needs of survivors, is essential
(Eriksen and de Vet 2020). An important step towards understanding these
needs is to comprehend both the value and cost of insurance to recovery
processes in more than monetary terms.
References
Baxter, R & Brickell, K 2014, ‘For home unmaking’, Home Cultures, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 133–143.
Blunt, Alison 2005, ‘Cultural geography: Cultural geographies of home’, Progress in
Human Geography, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 505–515.
Blunt, A & Dowling, R 2006, Home. New York, NY: Routledge.
Booth, K 2020, ‘Firescapes of disruption: An absence of insurance in landscapes
of fire’, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 525–544.
Booth, K & Harwood, A 2016, ‘Insurance as catastrophe: A geography of house and
contents insurance in bushfire-prone places’, Geoforum, vol. 69, pp. 4–52.
Booth, K & Tranter, B 2018, ‘When disaster strikes: Under-insurance in Australian
households’, Urban Studies, vol. 55, no. 14, pp. 3135–3150.
Camilleri, P, Healy, C, Macdonald, E.M, Nicholls, S, Sykes, J, Winkworth, G
& Woodward, M 2010, ‘Recovery from bushfires: The experience of the 2003
Canberra bushfires three years after’, Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 990383-1–990383-15.