In the wake of the fires on February 7, Dr Tolhurst, senior lecturer in Fire Ecology and Management at the University of Melbourne's Creswick campus, wrote two reports and gave several days of evidence to the Royal Commission.

But he said the findings had been modified in a way it wasn't designed to be used.

"There was a strong political imperative to come up with an answer this fire season," he said.

"We ought to treat this as a trial but not as an answer.

"There needs to be some careful thought and some science put into it."

Dr Tolhurst said too much emphasis had been placed on "catastrophic conditions", saying in reality "severe" and "extreme" fire conditions could too provide uncontrollable fires.

As a result, individuals lacked information about how much risk they were really in.

"I'd prefer we went back to the old system, calling everything extreme," Dr Tolhurst said.

"They probably should be working more on days of total fire ban declarations than catastrophic days."

Instead, he has called for a system similar to cyclone warnings, using numerical categories 1,2,3,4 and 5.

Dr Tolhurst also said there was more to fire danger than simply the weather.

He said forecast maps used by the fire danger rating system did not take into account the terrain, people and assets in the area and whether or not there had been recent fires.

The mapping system should also be revised and should be divided along municipal boundaries, he said.

"It would be easier for people if they knew it was based on municipal boundaries and areas of similar fire risk,"he said.

"It may require municipal boundaries to be reviewed."

Chair of the shire's municipal emergency management planning committee Bill McClenaghan recently called for the complicated mapping system used to determine fire danger ratings and total fire bans to be overhauled.

The shire is placed in the Central district for total fire bans and North Central for forecasts and danger ratings.

The Municipal Association of Victoria is looking into the issue.