Human Behaviour and Fire - Article Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Course: Introduction In the course of fire investigations, questions usually arise which may or may not be successfully answered. The natures of the fire, how extreme, how sudden or how unexpected are some of the vocabulary used when fatalities occur. The focus is therefore mostly on fire behavior rather than human behavior. But fire behavior is an unpredictable phenomenon that cannot be reasoned with. Past lessons and analysis of major fire incidents provide valuable lessons on the decisions taken in the event of a fire and how this decision affected the development of the fire. Some action may lead to successful combat of the fire while some actions impact dangerously on the premises and lives of individuals directly affected by the fire. Overall, people who are involved in a fire crisis tend to follow the same behavioral pattern. it therefore stands to reason that fire safety systems can be based on these known patterns. There is therefore need to shift the focus from fire behavior to human behavior in order to avoid a repeat of the mistakes made by individuals and groups during fire incidents. The influence of human behavior on initiation, development and consequence of fire In the course of fire investigations, questions usually arise which may or may not be successfully answered. The natures of the fire, how extreme, how sudden or how unexpected are some of the vocabulary used when fatalities occur. The focus is therefore mostly on fire behavior rather than human behavior. But fire behavior is an unpredictable phenomenon that cannot be reasoned with. There is therefore need to shift the focus from fire behavior to human behavior in order to avoid a repeat of the mistakes made by individuals and groups during fire incidents. Panic in case of a fire makes matters worse. This mode of human behavior in the face of danger usually leads to individuals taking actions that are detrimental to the efforts of stopping the spread of the fire. The Rose and Crown hotel fire on 26th December 1969 caused the deaths of 11 people. The fatalities in this case could have been considerably less had panic not set in. two guests in the hotel discovered the fire but were so panic stricken they could not give coherent directions to the fire brigade operator. Had the two kept calm the outcome may have been significantly different as the fire station was very near the hotel. Panic among the hotel guests also helped in the faster spread of the fire through the hotel. By living windows and doors open, they provided the fire with a perfect combustion environment as Smoke and heat was able to easily spread into previously fire free areas (Fireservice, 2013). Negligence in some cases by individuals turns out to be a major factor in the cause and spread of a fire. Most fires are caused human actions be they accidental or deliberate. Most of these accidental causes of fire normal border on negligence and could be avoided if better care was taken. Dropping of lighted matches, cigarettes, uncared for electrical appliances like heaters and cooking devices. These errors are usually tragic as catastrophic fire normally result if action is not taken. Most domestic fires are started this way. The Windsor castle fire of 1992 started when a painter left a halogen spotlight very close to the window curtains. The heat radiated by the 1000 watts spotlight was enough to make the curtains burst into flames. This simple mistake led to one fifth of the castle being destroyed (Fireservice, 2013). The Cramer creek wild fire in the United States of America in 2003 is another case of negligence. Personnel fighting the fires assumed that the fire was manageable and failed to calculate the potential of the fire spreading. They did not therefore call for reinforcements. The result was the death of two people the destruction of homes and the burning of large tracts of forest. The fire was seen as routine until it blew up and caused massive destruction. Misperceptions about a fire can therefore have tragic consequences. The situational awareness of people is therefore a human behavior exhibited in fire situations that makes them make either wrong or right decisions (Close, 2005). The fire department of Japan carried out a survey on human reaction and attitude during a fire outbreak. The survey was done on people who at one time been involved in a fire incident. It was found out that most males tried to attack the fire by using simple tools such as brooms, buckets of water and portable fire extinguishers. Some of these efforts were successful in containing the spread of the fire to other areas while in some cases, the choice of individuals to fight the fire instead of raising the alarm and notifying the emergency services led to death and destruction. The survey showed that fatalities in some cases occurred due to inhabitants of a building having lost the chance to escape for various reasons. Some were confused; others wasted time collecting valuables while others failed to escape while trying to save other people (Rosaria, 2000). Most of the reactions by individuals during the start and course of the fire endanger their own lives and those of others, in some cases, residents are made aware of the presence of fire by their sense of hearing. Instead of evacuating immediately, these individuals go to confirm the presence of the fire by sight. This wastage of valuable time may lead to death as they would have higher chances of escaping the fire and they would not be exposed to dangerous levels of smoke, heat and fire. In analyzing reactions of individuals after finding the fire, most of them claimed they automatically tried to limit its spread by attacking it. Most, making use of crude ways like; cupping water in their hands, using troughs, cups, jugs and bowls. Even though these actions are undertaken in good faith, they are largely ineffective and could be more successful if proper equipment like a hand held fire extinguisher is used (Mito, 1996). The need to be safe and the fear of getting caught in the fire also cause a significant increase in poor judgments made by individuals. Human judgment or decision making under normal circumstances is different from when under stress. Individuals decide to jump from high buildings or try to fight the fire with portable fire extinguishers without the necessary expertise. These decisions which may end with tragic consequences could be avoided with the necessary public awareness and the need for individuals to assess their options before making a decision. The most recent example of this is the Brazil club fire in January 2013 that has up to now claimed the lives of up to 232 people. The fire which started because of a flares display by a band member was initially weak but spread very first. Reports claim that the revelers panicked and instead of exiting in an orderly manner, they panicked and stampeded towards the exit and blocking it. Most of the dead died from suffocation. In England, interviews of victims of fire carried out y fire fighters after the event found out that some residents, after evacuating safely, still went back inside the building during the fire emergency. This was also found to be true in the United States (Levin, 1984). Unintentional human error can aid the development of fire and lead to death and destruction. A catastrophic fire broke out in a nursing home in Virginia in a nursing home leading to the complete destruction of the nursing home catering to the needs of 161 aged patients. The fire was caused by a lit match that fell on linen. This notwithstanding, a nurse who discovered the fire helped the two occupants out of the room but in doing so, she left the door to the hallway open. This allowed the spread of smoke and fire into the hall. Other nurses on perceiving the smoke opened the stairwell doors in order to rescue other patients and in so doing aided the spread of the fire to other parts of the building. This innocent mistake by the nurses led to the spread of the fire that led to the death of 12 people and injuries to 98 others (Stambaugh & Kirby, 1989). Rosario (2000) states that, different decisions made by different individuals depend on their gender. it was reported that a higher number of females rushed to call the emergency services than their male companions. More males tried to extinguish the fire on noticing its presence than females while more females tried to warn other people compared to men. The survey also established that men are more likely to try to rescue people than women while women are more likely to save valuable belongings compared to men. The age of people also plays a part in their decision making in case of a fire breakout. This influences the outcome of a fire greatly. People between the ages of 10 years to 64 years acted calmly and appropriately compared to older people (above 65 years). Some of the younger people did not act calmly but still completed their tasks appropriately. More of the older populations were unable to take any appropriate action as compared to the younger people. When the handicapped are involved, there is need to provide adequate support and facilities for their evacuation. Even though handicapped people may find the normal safety procedure adequate, other precautions are necessary for their complete safety. These safety features depend on the nature of the disability. But research by the National Bureau of Standard determined that handicapped people when familiar with their surroundings, operated within the same evacuation period as the people who aren’t disabled. The physical setting in case of a fire outbreak affects the response of inhabitants in various ways. Studies done by universities in Portugal on human behavior, in a fire situation, yielded differences based on age, gender and education level of the resident. Most people do not know or are not overly familiar with the exits provided for in their buildings and incase of fire would take their usual route of egress from the building. The presence of smoke makes it hard to move as it is dark; therefore, residents should be familiar with emergency exits. Most respondents to Cordeiro et al (2011) try to find another way out of the building but without certainty of there being another way out of the building. Unfamiliarity with other exits may be due to deliberate ignorance or the exit routes are not well marked. This can lead to precious time being wasted in trying to locate the emergency exit (Levin, 1984).Effort is being made to include human behavior in the factors affecting the analysis and design of buildings (Kuligowski, 2009). The response to a fire alarm in the building varies with different individuals and affects the development and consequence of the fire differently. Interpretation of the fire alarm differs with some residents assuming it is a normal fire drill while 65 percent tried to ascertain what the ongoing process was. 15 percent decided to leave the building as soon as they heard the alarm while 5 percent would try to contact the fire brigade. These varying views from different individuals only varied slightly with the education levels, gender and a previous encounter with fire (Cordeiro et al 2011). Diffusion of responsibility occurs when, on hearing the alarm, people wait for others to take action before they do. This delayed reaction usually costs them their lives. This is attributed to social interactions. Human behavior changes moderately a when individuals are placed in a group setting. The decisions they make are variations of their decisions when alone. When in a group, an individual’s performance changes according to the dynamics of the group. These include their ages and whether or not the group has a recognized leader among them. Those groups without leaders tend to panic during fire while groups like schools, hospitals, companies and nursing homes will react in a more orderly manner as long as they seem to be given guidance by the person or people above them in authority. The cohesion among group members will also influence the groups’ reaction. Individual members will feel the need to warn, advice and help their fellow group members than when they deal with people they do not know. Diffusion of responsibility occurs in group settings. Individuals will react after observing the reactions of those around them. This decision making process based on other peoples actions tend to slow down evacuation procedures and may prove fatal at the end of the day. The gender of the group may also affect its action. Females will more likely report the fire to the relevant authorities while men will most likely attempt to fight the fire. The education level of individuals is another contributing factor. People with higher education levels or those with a certain level of fire training will follow the safety procedures of the building or company. People in transient groups such as supermarkets or clubs will experience conflicting behaviors. Club fires prove this argument. The Brazil club fire that caused the death of 232 people and the Rhode Island nightclub fire that killed 100 people are good examples to illustrate this point. The presence of so many people in an enclosed building and without recognizable leadership causes panic when fire breaks out preventing the orderly exit of people. Disorganization results into stampedes, less people manage to get out of the burning building causing death by suffocation a huge possibility. Conclusion Different human behaviors have different consequences in fire situations. The initiation of fire, its development and the consequences of the fire outbreak are directly proportional to the decisions made by individuals during the situation. Some behaviors during a fire lead to the saving of lives while others are responsible for an increase in the number of fatalities recorded. The ages of individuals, their gender and their physical attributes greatly influence their decision making under these conditions. The education level and the fire training an individual has undertaken also influences the decision making process. It is therefore important to further study human behavior in these situations so that proper guidelines and systems are put in place to help those that find themselves in the same situation. References Fireservice, 2013, Rose and Crown Hotel fire. Retrieved From Fireservice, 2013, Windsor castle fire. Retrieved From < http://www.fireservice.co.uk/history/windsor-castle-fire> Close, R. K., 2005, Fire behavior vs. Human behavior: Why the lessons from Cramer matter, Retrieved From :< http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/Close.pdf> Rosaria, O.,2000, The human behavior in fires and fire prevention in Japan, Retrieved From Mito, H.,1996,Escape behavior from fire, Journal of Japan Association for Fire Science and Engineering, 46,(6), p 46-50 Levin, M. B., 1984, Human behavior in fire: What we know now. Maryland: Center for fire research. Stambaugh, H and Kirby, E. R., 1989, Twelve fatality nursing home fire, Fema: Virginia Sibaja, M.,2013, Brazil night club fire kills more than 230 people. Time world publication. Retrieved From< http://world.time.com/2013/01/27/police-up-death-toll-to-245-in-brazil-club-fire/> Cordeiro et al, 2011. Human behavior under fire situations-Portuguese population. Retrieved From Kuligowski, D. E,2009, The process of human behavior in fires Retrieved From < http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire09/PDF/f09027.pdf> Read More

Panic among the hotel guests also helped in the faster spread of the fire through the hotel. By living windows and doors open, they provided the fire with a perfect combustion environment as Smoke and heat was able to easily spread into previously fire free areas (Fireservice, 2013). Negligence in some cases by individuals turns out to be a major factor in the cause and spread of a fire. Most fires are caused human actions be they accidental or deliberate. Most of these accidental causes of fire normal border on negligence and could be avoided if better care was taken.

Dropping of lighted matches, cigarettes, uncared for electrical appliances like heaters and cooking devices. These errors are usually tragic as catastrophic fire normally result if action is not taken. Most domestic fires are started this way. The Windsor castle fire of 1992 started when a painter left a halogen spotlight very close to the window curtains. The heat radiated by the 1000 watts spotlight was enough to make the curtains burst into flames. This simple mistake led to one fifth of the castle being destroyed (Fireservice, 2013).

The Cramer creek wild fire in the United States of America in 2003 is another case of negligence. Personnel fighting the fires assumed that the fire was manageable and failed to calculate the potential of the fire spreading. They did not therefore call for reinforcements. The result was the death of two people the destruction of homes and the burning of large tracts of forest. The fire was seen as routine until it blew up and caused massive destruction. Misperceptions about a fire can therefore have tragic consequences.

The situational awareness of people is therefore a human behavior exhibited in fire situations that makes them make either wrong or right decisions (Close, 2005). The fire department of Japan carried out a survey on human reaction and attitude during a fire outbreak. The survey was done on people who at one time been involved in a fire incident. It was found out that most males tried to attack the fire by using simple tools such as brooms, buckets of water and portable fire extinguishers. Some of these efforts were successful in containing the spread of the fire to other areas while in some cases, the choice of individuals to fight the fire instead of raising the alarm and notifying the emergency services led to death and destruction.

The survey showed that fatalities in some cases occurred due to inhabitants of a building having lost the chance to escape for various reasons. Some were confused; others wasted time collecting valuables while others failed to escape while trying to save other people (Rosaria, 2000). Most of the reactions by individuals during the start and course of the fire endanger their own lives and those of others, in some cases, residents are made aware of the presence of fire by their sense of hearing.

Instead of evacuating immediately, these individuals go to confirm the presence of the fire by sight. This wastage of valuable time may lead to death as they would have higher chances of escaping the fire and they would not be exposed to dangerous levels of smoke, heat and fire. In analyzing reactions of individuals after finding the fire, most of them claimed they automatically tried to limit its spread by attacking it. Most, making use of crude ways like; cupping water in their hands, using troughs, cups, jugs and bowls.

Even though these actions are undertaken in good faith, they are largely ineffective and could be more successful if proper equipment like a hand held fire extinguisher is used (Mito, 1996). The need to be safe and the fear of getting caught in the fire also cause a significant increase in poor judgments made by individuals. Human judgment or decision making under normal circumstances is different from when under stress. Individuals decide to jump from high buildings or try to fight the fire with portable fire extinguishers without the necessary expertise.

These decisions which may end with tragic consequences could be avoided with the necessary public awareness and the need for individuals to assess their options before making a decision.

Read More