Human Behavior in Fires - Report Example

Fire Investigation Human behaviours in Fires Contents Contents 2 1. Introduction Chapter 10 of the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations suggest that human behaviour affects not only people’s reaction to fire emergencies and their chances of survival but occurrence of fire initiation and further spread of fire. Moreover, research on fire-related human behaviours shows that there is indeed a number factors affecting individual or group before, during, and after a fire or explosion occur (NFPA 921, 2008, p.98). The following sections discuss these fire-related human behaviours in fires including analysis of real-life fire incidents demonstrating the actual occurrence of such behaviours before, during, and after the fire broke out. 2. Fire-related Human Behaviours in Fires 2.1 Individual and Group Behaviour in Fires Fire-related individual behaviour according NFPA 921 (2008) is affected by the characteristics of certain individual and these can be physiological, physical, cognitive, and the environment such as familiarity with the place where the fire occurs (p.98). According to Blaich (2008), people tend to adapt to the confusing and uncertain ways that fire develops and spread (p.20). For instance, a person who already felt the heat or smell some smokes from a fire tend to be quickly confused and unable to reason properly, disoriented, and sometimes, depending on the situation completely lost his or her sense of direction (Thomson, 2001, p.90). Similarly, individual characteristic is affected or influence by group characteristics, size, structure, permanence, group roles and norms, and others (NFPA 921, 2008, p.99). According to the International Association of Arson Investigators (2011), smaller group in fire incidents tend to respond faster than larger groups because of the tendency of most members not to initiate the first move or disrupt the workings of the group (p.129). Similarly, the roles and norms of individuals in a group such as gender, social class, education, and so on can greatly affect how the group and the individual within it will react to fire. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that men are more likely to engage in countering the threat fire than women who in contrast will try to escape or report the incident to other people (National Fire Protection Association, 2005, p.119). 2.2 Individual Physical and Cognitive Limitations Individual physical and cognitive limitations are generally the inability of certain individual to think and react appropriately to fire and explosion due to mobility problems. These include problems caused by physical disability, intoxication and injury, exhaustion, drug use, mental illness and other debilitating medical conditions, and other factors that will prevent an individual from reaching a safer place. For instance, very old people will take longer time to react than young and physically fit teenager. Similarly, disabled people and the very young such as children cannot escape by themselves thus need to wait for assistance (NFPA 921, 2008, p.99; Geisler, 2010, p.25). 2.3 Individual Familiarity with Physical Setting Although may be greatly affected by physical and cognitive limitations, familiarity with the physical setting of the place where the fire occurs is an advantage. According to NFPA 921 (2008), a person in his home can better judge the fire situation because he is familiar with this setting. In contrast, those living in unfamiliar places such as hotels will likely find it difficult to assess the fire situation and appropriate means of escape (p.98). People with complete familiarity of the building tend to leave or escape faster than those who are unfamiliar and unsure of their direction (US Fire Administration, 1992, p.17). 2.4 Impact of Group Characteristics on Fire-related Behaviour As mentioned earlier, an individual interacting with a group will behave differently because group characteristics tend to prevail over individual preferences. For instance, bigger groups tend to delay their reaction or response time and so is the individual who is likely hesitating and do not want to disturb the workings of the group (National Fire Protection Association, 2005, p.118). Moreover, these characteristics according to NFPA 921 (2008) are not limited to size, structure, and permanence but roles and norms that can significantly affect how a certain individual react to fire (p.98). The Beverly Hills Super Club fire incident for instance demonstrated the disadvantage of group behaviour in terms of fire as people (belonging to the same group) involved in this incident made a joint escape and moved at the speed of the slowest member who other members do want to leave behind (Giesler, 2010, p.25). 2.5 Impact of Group Size and Structure on Fire-related Behaviour Group size and structure influence individual behaviour in fire because there is a common tendency to wait for cues and wait for the majority to move. This behaviour according to study is the product of individual’s sense of responsibility to the group where they belong (NFPA 921, 2008, p.98). In contrast, depending on the group structure, a formal or informal leader may decide for the group on when and where they should go. The reaction of this leader, which is also an individual affected by several fire-related factors mentioned earlier will eventually determine the reaction of the group as a whole (Hutchison, 2003, p.451). 2.6 Impact of Group Permanence, Roles, and Norms on Fire-Related Behaviour In relation to size and structure, group permanence greatly affects the outcome of fire-related behaviours. A family for instance will be likely structured and organised as they move away from the fire. In contrast, those who belong on transient group will exhibit different behaviours and will likely decide on their own (NFPA 921, 2008, p.99). The problem with group permanence such as family, sports team, and others however is the fact there is leadership in their structure that can eventually delay individual response. Similarly, the roles and norms in the group such as gender, education, occupation, and others can also affect response time. For instance, a group of educated people may either delay their respond due to perceived fire safety systems in the building or immediately escape thinking that such situation is uncontrollable. In contrast, women as mentioned earlier will immediately escape while men will probably watch the situation and attempt to put out the fire (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.129) 2.7 Characteristics of Physical Setting Characteristics of physical setting such as the location of fire exits, the number of fire exits, height of the building, and presence of fire alarms and suppression systems influence the behaviour of the individual in a number of ways (NFPA 921, 2008, p.99). For instance, there is a tendency for individual to panic if they are not familiar with the building and cannot find the exit. In 2003 fire in the Station Night Club in West Warwick, Rhode Island that took the lives of 100 people was due to congestion in the main door as most of them cannot find the fire exits (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.130). 2.8 Influence of Fire Alarms, Suppression Systems, and Characteristics of Fire The presence and knowledge of the existence of fire alarms and fire suppression systems make people more secured and more alert in terms of fire. However, these can also negatively when suppression agent decrease visibility of the escape routes. Similarly, repeated false alarms may reduce the positive effect as occupants may not respond to the real warnings (NFPA 921, 2008, p.99). According to Stellman (1998), fire alarms serve as a cue and make individuals well aware of the existence of danger and define their situation correctly (p.11). Similarly, presence of smoke and small flames may not consider as hazards by some people because they do not understand the principles of fire (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.130). 3. Factors Related to Fire Initiation 3.1 Actions and Inactions of People, Negligence, Carelessness, Ignorance and Disregard to Fire Safety Accidental fires are often the result of inactions of people such as poor fire safety practices, negligence, and carelessness (NFPA 921, 2008, p.100). For instance, four out of five forest fires were started by people with negligent behaviours throwing smoking materials and improperly extinguishing campfires (Nwanna, 2004, p.120). According to Fitzgerald (2002) human actions and inactions are major factors in fire losses such as ignoring combustible materials near sources of fire, throwing smoking materials anywhere, misreporting leaks, delayed reporting of fire and others (p.220). 3.2 Improper Equipment Maintenance, Housekeeping, and other Poor Operation Practices Study of several fire incidents such as Piper Alpha and other industrial accidents suggest that deliberate unsafe behaviour result to 58% of fire incidents while 19% is from poor maintenance and repair works (Fullwood, 2000, p.165). Failure to maintain compliance with safety standards is another including abuse and misuse, poor leadership and supervision, sub-standard materials, tools and equipments (Stranks, 2012, p.39). 3.3 Disregard to Warning Labels and Safety Instructions According to Cohen & Woodson (2005), very few people consider the possibility of fire or explosion from overheated objects such as cooking oil, appliances, and others even with clear warnings and labels (p.5). Another is disregarding the prescribed maintenance and cleaning labels including operating procedures and the tendency to ignore product labels reminding users about fire safety codes and standards (International Association of Arson Investigators, 2011, p.130). 4. Cases of Fire-Related Human Behaviours In Gothenburg Dance Hall fire in 1998, 400 young people died and 213 were injured because many of them jumped 5 metres to ground. Causalities were found in the main door because they cannot find the exits and panic (Mallon, 2010, p.52). By analysis, the fire-related behaviour in this incident that greatly affects the chances of survivals includes neglect and poor fire safety behaviour of building management. For instance, the fire started in the fire exit itself as management made them storage of highly combustible materials (Mallon, 2010, p.52). Another is the tendency of individual (who are unfamiliar with the building) to take escape in the way where they came from – the main exit. Another is the tendency to panic because they cannot find any exit. In the 1985 Bradford Stadium fire, 56 people died and 300 were injured because spectators ignore the small fire and smoke coming under the wooden bleachers. The fire according to the result of the investigation was started by smoking materials thrown into the accumulating thrash under the bleachers. The crowd according to the report was not reacting and they only tried to escape when the fire start engulfing the main stand. The exits were locked and there were no fire extinguishers around (Cote, 2003, p.1). By analysis, this incident demonstrates combined neglect and common human behaviour in fires. For instance, the fire-related behaviours of individual in the stadium contributed to the growth of fire particularly in poor fire safety and maintenance practices. Note that combustible trashes were accumulating under the bleachers while management allow smoking in main stand. The delayed reaction shown by spectators who saw the first sign of fire proves that people do not always immediately react to fire and smoke while the the greatly number of people rushing into a single exit demonstrate the working of groups, and the tendency to act as a whole and follow others in their escape. Panic was also evident as a number of people actually jumped over barriers while some crushed other people to death just to make their escape. 5. Conclusion The fire-related behaviours included in Chapter 10 of the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations is correct as evidenced by the number of fire incidents showing the behaviours of people involved. Human behaviours do affect the chances of survival but growth and spread of fire. Individual and group behaviours, physical and cognitive limitations, physical setting, presence of alarms, warnings and labels, actions and inactions of people involved greatly contribute to the initiation and outcome of fire incidents. The Gothenburg, Bradford stadium, and other fire incidents mentioned in this report demonstrate the unimaginable outcome of such fire-related behaviour particularly when there is neglect, poor building maintenance and fire safety practices. 6. References Blaich P, (2008), The Benefits of Behavioral Research to the Fire Service: Human Behavior in Fires and Emergencies, iUniverse, US Cohen H. & Woodson W, (2005), Principles of Forensic Human Factors/Ergonomics, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, US Cote A, (2003), Organizing for Fire and Rescue Services: A Special Edition of the Fire Protection Handbook, Jones & Bartlett Learning, UK Fitzgerald R, (2004), Building Fire Performance Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, US Fullwood R, (2000), Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Chemical and Nuclear Industries, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Giesler M, (2010), Fire and Life Safety Educator, Cengage Learning, US Hutchinson E, (2003), Dimensions of Human Behaviour: Person and Environment, SAGE, UK International Association of Arson Investigators, (2011), Principles and Practice to NFPA 921 and 1033: Principles and Practice to NFPA 921 and 1033, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, UK Malon B, (2010), Working with Bereaved Children and Young People, SAGE, UK National Fire Protection Association, (2005), User’s Manual for NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, Jones & Bartlett Learning, UK NFPA 921, (2008), Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, International Codes and Standards Organization, US Nwanna G, (2004), Natural Disasters and Other Emergencies, What You Should Know: A Family Planning & Survival Guide, Frontline Publishers, US Stranks J, (2012), Human Factors and Behavioural Safety, Routledge, UK Stellman J, (1998), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, International Labour Organization, UK Thomson N, (2001), Fire Hazards in Industry, Elsevier, UK US Fire Administration, (1992), Ten Fatality Board and Care Facility Fire: Detroit, Michigan, FEMA, US Read More