Salam, M; Wilkinson, S and Wu, S (2025) Retrofitting for bushfire resilience: A scalable approach to addressing housing vulnerability among ageing populations in Australia. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 43(8), pp. 75-88. ISSN 2398-4708
Abstract
Purpose – This study investigates the barriers older Australians face when retrofitting their homes for bushfire resilience. Many retirees rely on the Age Pension or limited superannuation, restricting their capacity to fund upgrades. Physical constraints reduce their ability to undertake or manage retrofit tasks. Complex building codes and bushfire regulations add to the challenges, especially without access to technical advice. These financial, physical and regulatory barriers delay or prevent effective retrofitting, increasing risk for older people in bushfire-prone areas. Design/methodology/approach – The research adopts a case study approach centered on the Bega Valley region in New South Wales an area severely impacted by the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires. Data were collected in two phases during 2023: first, focus groups with older adults to elicit lived experiences, challenges and perceptions regarding bushfire retrofitting; second, site visits and structured property assessments using a bespoke Property Assessment Protocol and aerial drone imagery to evaluate vulnerabilities. Findings – Key challenges include the cost of upgrades, a lack of clear guidance on bushfire attack level requirements and limited access to qualified tradespeople. Many older residents struggle with maintenance tasks due to physical limitations. Emotional attachment to homes and fear of relocation also influenced decisions. The findings highlight the need for clear, simple retrofitting guidance tailored to older adults and stronger community networks that connect homeowners with skilled professionals. Originality/value – This research develops a scalable framework to address a gap in bushfire preparedness for older Australians. It combines resident interviews, site assessments and compliance checks to identify barriers to retrofitting and define actions based on risk, effort and cost. The framework offers a structured method for prioritizing retrofit tasks according to user capability and property-specific risk. Its originality lies in presenting a practical approach that enables staged retrofitting tailored to the needs of ageing populations in bushfire-prone areas.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ageing population; bushfire resilience; climate-adaptation; retrofitting |
| Index terms: | face, relocation, homeowner, bushfire, interview, compliance, focus group, drone, building code, housing, retrofitting, methodology, older people, New South Wales, vulnerability, regulation, adaptation, Australia, case study, prioritizing, summer, ageing population |
| Subjects: | climate science, user focus, construction type, psychology, automation and robotics, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, environmental hazards, demography, market analysis, data collection methods, renovation and retrofit, political science, regulatory law, sociology, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Governance, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here