Human Behaviour and Fires - Report Example

Student Name: Instructor name: Unit Name: Date: The initiation development and consequences of many fires are either directly or indirectly related to the actions or omissions of people associated with the incident scene. Discuss the relevant aspects of human behaviour and characteristics which may impact on the cause and outcome of a fire and are therefore relevant to the fire investigation. 1. INTRODUCTION The extent and impact of a fire is often directly as a result of the actions of the human beings caught up in the fire. Negative reactions can cause negative repercussions and the opposite is likewise the case. For instance, human beings are negatively responsible for fires when they ignite an unwanted fire, arson, the reckless use of cigarettes and alcohol, worsening existing fires through improper actions or actions that lessen the effectiveness of installed fire safety systems. On the flipside, human beings can positively affect the outcome of fires by properly using installed fire safety systems or if they are faulty, compensating for the defects in the fire safety systems (Paulsen, 1984, p. 15). Evidently, studying human behaviours and responses is crucial in determining the mistakes people make during fires so as to correct them for future fire fighting efforts. In that regard, the following discussion will analyze the relevant aspects of human behaviour and characteristics that have an impact on the cause and outcome of a fire and are therefore relevant to the fire investigation. 2. FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL When a fire breaks out how one responds is very critical as it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Yet, the reality is that during any emergency human beings experience some level of stress. It has been accepted that every person involved in an emergency will feel some form of stress despite their gender, age, cultural background, past experience or training. This stress is a natural reaction necessary in stimulating actions and reactions to the emergency (Seyle, 1979). The response of the emergency will be determined by the subject himself, the environment and the scale of the emergency. For the person involved to make a decision, they have to process the information obtained from the environment or gotten from past experience (Janis & Mann, 1977). Analyzing the decision making process aspect of human behaviours during fires is essential in determining the response. This is because the decision-making process during fires differs markedly from ordinary daily decision-making since there is much more at stake, there is a limited amount of time and the information available to make the decisions is often incomplete and ambiguous. According to human behaviour research, all actions carried out in all situations are caused by a decision-making process as opposed to random chance or stimulus-response relationships. Research from building fire evacuations has revealed that prior to taking any action; individuals first perceived some cues, then interpreted threat on the basis of the cues and finally made a decision about the action to take according to the interpretations made (Kuligowski, 2009, p. 5). According to the (City University of New York, 2002), there are six techniques that are employed during the decision- making process i.e recognition, validation, definition, evaluation, commitment, and reassessment. The first step in the technique begins with recognition. This is whereby the individual involved perceives cues which reveal a threat of fire. These cues are often vague and not indicative of a serious fire. In this process, the situation does not feel right to the affected person and the harm is undetected until smoke, a flame or heat is evidenced through either one of the senses. Recognition is then followed by validation which involves efforts by the affected individual to establish the severity of the threat cues. Here, the person asks questions like “Do I smell smoke” to determine the treat levels. The third step of definition involves efforts to relate the information about the threat to a variable for instance the time context. During this stage, the individual shall decide on a plan by asking questions such as “How much fire can I see” or “How much smoke do I smell?” Step four is evaluation whereby psychological actions are needed so that the person can aptly respond to the fire. The ability of the person to lessen their anxiety and stress levels is crucial. Here, the decision of whether to face the fire or escape is made and since the fire spreads and grows very quickly, the time during this process is very short, usually just a few seconds long. After evaluation comes the commitment part which comprises of the methods the person involved will use to instigate the behaviour that is needed to execute the plan that was formulated during the evaluation process. Lastly, the decision- making process ends with the reassessment part which is the hardest part since the last process has already failed. As more failures are experienced, the person will get more frustrated thereby increasing the likelihood of risk and injury substantially. As the probability of success lessens, the decisions made by the individual become less rational (City University Of New York, 2002, p. 9). 3. FACTORS RELEVANT TO GROUPS Group behaviour differs markedly from individual behaviour. This is due to the group and crowd dynamics that come into play. Mob mentality is prevalent within groups and people tend to follow the crowd, whether rightfully or not. According to Kuusinen (2007), the actions of group members are not independent. As such, the members will follow the actions of the “leader” whoever that may be. In a family set- up, the leader is most likely the head such as the father or an older sibling in case the fire involves the children only. Separated groups like families which are hierarchically organized are very likely to gather together. Instead of instantly escaping to the exits like in the case of individuals, groups gather with familiar people then decide on the action plan as a group. Individuals who are escaping from a building fire, for instance, to move faster than they usually do. But with groups especially those who are not related, people begin pushing each other and the contact among them turns physical. Group behaviour in fires there fore has the tendency of being violent and frenzied and as Kuusinen (2007) aptly explains, a throttle at the exit route may create clogging and arching causing a jam to build up. In a jam, the crowds’ pushing at the back can lead to fatal pressures being exerted at the front. In addition, a snowball or domino effect is likely to be experienced whereby the actions of all members boil over and cause a ripple effect to the entire group. Stampedes can easily ensue and in such cases, people are very likely to be killed from being trampled on during the stampede as opposed to burns or smoke inhalation. Indeed, if crowd dynamics is not taken into account, fire disasters can have far more serious consequences than necessary. Further to that, evacuating crows tend to exhibit mass behavior especially in heterogeneous crowds that consist of diverse members such as in supermarkets. These group members shall probably try to evacuate the building together. There are two sages of group behaviour in such a scenario- the gathering stage and the evacuation stage. During the gathering stage, group members tend to walk towards each other so as to gather the group as one. During the evacuation stage, the group then walks together along the exit route that has been decided upon. This type of scenario is one which is free of chaos. Cohesion is the glue that keeps this group together ensuring that the evacuation process is as orderly as possible. Another aspect of group behaviour and the actions they take is with regards to fires that take place in workplaces. According to Vaught and Wiehagen (1991), workplace culture has a positive impact on the actions that will be taken by the group caught up in the fire. Workplace culture and particularly the buddy system positively determine group member responses to a fire. For instance, in the case of miners, the buddy system causes an efficient and cohesive escape. This is due to the inherent unity and familiarity within the group which helps create a unity of purpose necessary for a coordinated escape effort. 4. IMPACT OF THE PHYSICAL SETTING The physical setting within which a fire takes place undoubtedly has an affect on human behaviour in fires and this is particularly so in building fires. A building's characteristics has a major impact on how people will respond to the fire. These characteristics include the building’s organization, design, fire safety system and height. With regards to design for instance, the degree to which an occupant can easily find understand signs and instructions and escape routes depends on the way-finding performance of the building (Proulx, 2002). The design of a fire safety system is never universal and cannot be applied wholesale to every building with the same level of occupancy or type. Fire safety systems should be well- suited tailored to the unique nature of the building. In previous years for instance, the fire safety systems of multi-unit residential buildings were designed with two parents and two children for each apartment. As years have gone by though, this profile for the occupant has radically been transformed whereby the buildings are lived in by elderly people who live alone or single-parent families. This shift has to be considered when creating a fire safety system for buildings since the different level of occupancy means that the nature of response will be different in terms of intensity and group dynamics Building height is also factor that influences human behaviour in fires and the human behaviour in high-rise building fires is quite interesting. There is often a lethargic or lackluster response to the initial cues of a fire, fire alarms or voice communication instruction (Proulx, 2002). This is due to a false sense of security that a tall building creates and unless occupants of the building are well trained, they are often very reluctant to evacuate from the floor they reside in. They are usually prepared to remain on location and see what happens. This type of protect-in-place approach or phased evacuation is preferred by such occupants as being safer and less disruptive by. Even for fire fighters, remaining on location during a fire is sometimes the preferred fire safety measure. 5. IMPACT OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRES The characteristics of fires differ from place to place and no fires are the same. This difference causes there to be different hazards within fire that could affect human behaviour. If the hazards are less potent, the less the effect on human behaviour. According to City University of New York (2002, pp. 3- 5), fire has different characteristics in relation to the temperature, oxygen depletion, smoke and heat with the danger depending on the intensity of each. The temperature for one can be very hazardous depending on the length of exposure, the level of breathability and the humidity it causes. Temperatures higher than 1500F is incapacitating while temperatures higher than 2120F most certainly leads to death. Smoke too has its hazards contrary o popular belief. While many people would rather face smoke as opposed to raw fire, the reality is that smoke inhalation is very dangerous. It also causes smoke obscuration, irritation, reduced visibility and toxicity. Several people die from smoke related complications as opposed to burns. With regards to oxygen depletion, the normal level of oxygen is 21% and if it drops, it leads to adverse physiological effects. Exposure to fire gases is yet another fire- related hazard since there is the production of highly toxic gases. One of the most dangerous gases is Carbon Monoxide which accounts for over a half of all deaths in a fire. Carbon Monoxide becomes attached red blood cells very easily thereby lessening capacity of the body to transport oxygen throughout the body. This is very dangerous and prolonged inhalation often leads to death. 6. A REFERENCE AND CRITIQUE OF SPECIFIC FIRE INCIDENTS WHERE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS HAVE INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME CASE STUDY: FIRE IN EUROBORG FOOTBALL STADIUM (2008) According to Oberijé (2009, p.1) an important football match between FC Groningen and Ajax was scheduled for play at the Euroborg football stadium in the Groningen, the Netherlands on April the 14th 2008. Present at the match were 20.000 supporters and for the match, die hard supporters of FC Groningen had planned to cause chaos through the use of toilet paper. They distributed over 1500 toilet paper rolls and confetti at the southern end of the stadium. They planned to throw toilet paper onto the field as soon as the players entered the grounds but even before the match, the papers had already begun to be thrown. Soon after the players went on-field, the toilet paper caught fire and many little fires ignited on the grounds and on the stands. As the fires increased, fans cheered wildly in anticipation of the start of the match with no one responding to the impending danger. In time, the heat and smoke became too unbearable that supporters at the northern end had to be evacuated. In this case, the human behaviour of the supporters was definitely at fault. The first error in judgment was the use of confetti and toilet paper. These are highly flammable materials and catching fire is very easy. Secondly, the mob mentality exhibited is telling since first, a majority of the supporters agreed to the ill- conceived ploy to create chaos. Thirdly, the supporters were so caught up in the excitement that they failed to notice that the fire was spreading fast. When the fire started first all the supporters were shouting and cheering. The security guards had a hard time persuading the supporters to vacate and it was only when they could feel the heat that they began to leave (Oberijé, 2009). In terms of their response, the supporter remained calm and did not panic. Nevertheless, they walked through the smoke and failed to use the available normal staircase since it was smoke- filled and instead just stood there waiting unaware of the available second escape route that was through a removable lexan wall (Oberijé, 2009). This response was quite positive as remaining calm helped prevent a stampede yet their unawareness of a second escape route is worrying and indicates that the management of the stadium have failed in raising awareness on fire safety measures in their stadium. In a nutshell therefore, the human behaviour caused the fire to begin and escalate but the fact that they remained calm under pressure helped prevent further spread and possible destruction to human life and property. 7. CONCLUSION Evidently, the initiation, development and consequences of many fires are directly or indirectly related to the actions or omissions of people associated with the incident scene. Human behaviour during fires has a direct impact on the severity of a fire and the destruction it will cause. Human behaviour during fire is dependent on the different stages in the decision- making process and depending on how the successful that process is; a person caught up in a fir can successfully escape from a fire as witnessed during the case of the Euroborg stadium fire. In addition to human behaviour, other factors such as group dynamics and building characteristics all impact on the outcome of a fire. As such, fire safety engineers need to incorporate and factor in the lessons learned from these three areas into their practices such as during building design to ensure that as much life and property is saved in future fire incidences for the greater good of society. REFERENCES City University of New York. 2002. Human Behaviour and Fire. Retrieved 16th January, 2010 from http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~tflan/.../FIS101HumanBehavior-Fire.pdf Janis, L.I. & Mann, L. 1977. Decision-making. New York: The Free Press. Kuligowski, Erica D. 2009. The Process of Human Behaviour in Fires. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 16th January, 2010 from http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire09/PDF/f09027.pdf Kuusinen, Juha-Matti. 2007. Group Behavior in FDS+Evac Evacuation Simulations. Retrieved 17th January, 2010 from http://www.sal.tkk.fi/Opinnot/Mat-2.108/pdf-files/ekuu07.pdf National Fire Protection Agency Ready Reference. 2003. Human Behaviour in Fire Emergencies Oberijé, Nancy et.al. 2009. Fire in Euroborg Football Stadium: Analysis of Human Behaviour. Netherlands Institute for Safety http://www.brandweerkennisnet.nl/publish/pages/4869/oberije_et_al_hbif_20091.pdf Paulsen, R. L.1984. Human behaviour and Fires: An introduction. Springer Netherlands Vol 20 (2) Proulx, G. 2002. Understanding human behaviour in stressful situations. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved 16th January, 2010 from http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc45394/nrcc45394.pdf Selye, H. 1979. The Stress Concept and some of its Implications. V. Hamilton & D.M. Warburton Eds., Human Stress and Cognition, London: John Wiley & Sons pp. 11-30. Vaught, Charles and Wiehagen, William J. 1991. Escape from a Mine Fire: Emergent Perspective and Work Group Behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 (4): 452-474 Read More

Research from building fire evacuations has revealed that prior to taking any action; individuals first perceived some cues, then interpreted threat on the basis of the cues and finally made a decision about the action to take according to the interpretations made (Kuligowski, 2009, p. 5). According to the (City University of New York, 2002), there are six techniques that are employed during the decision- making process i.e recognition, validation, definition, evaluation, commitment, and reassessment.

The first step in the technique begins with recognition. This is whereby the individual involved perceives cues which reveal a threat of fire. These cues are often vague and not indicative of a serious fire. In this process, the situation does not feel right to the affected person and the harm is undetected until smoke, a flame or heat is evidenced through either one of the senses. Recognition is then followed by validation which involves efforts by the affected individual to establish the severity of the threat cues.

Here, the person asks questions like “Do I smell smoke” to determine the treat levels. The third step of definition involves efforts to relate the information about the threat to a variable for instance the time context. During this stage, the individual shall decide on a plan by asking questions such as “How much fire can I see” or “How much smoke do I smell?” Step four is evaluation whereby psychological actions are needed so that the person can aptly respond to the fire. The ability of the person to lessen their anxiety and stress levels is crucial.

Here, the decision of whether to face the fire or escape is made and since the fire spreads and grows very quickly, the time during this process is very short, usually just a few seconds long. After evaluation comes the commitment part which comprises of the methods the person involved will use to instigate the behaviour that is needed to execute the plan that was formulated during the evaluation process. Lastly, the decision- making process ends with the reassessment part which is the hardest part since the last process has already failed.

As more failures are experienced, the person will get more frustrated thereby increasing the likelihood of risk and injury substantially. As the probability of success lessens, the decisions made by the individual become less rational (City University Of New York, 2002, p. 9). 3. FACTORS RELEVANT TO GROUPS Group behaviour differs markedly from individual behaviour. This is due to the group and crowd dynamics that come into play. Mob mentality is prevalent within groups and people tend to follow the crowd, whether rightfully or not.

According to Kuusinen (2007), the actions of group members are not independent. As such, the members will follow the actions of the “leader” whoever that may be. In a family set- up, the leader is most likely the head such as the father or an older sibling in case the fire involves the children only. Separated groups like families which are hierarchically organized are very likely to gather together. Instead of instantly escaping to the exits like in the case of individuals, groups gather with familiar people then decide on the action plan as a group.

Individuals who are escaping from a building fire, for instance, to move faster than they usually do. But with groups especially those who are not related, people begin pushing each other and the contact among them turns physical. Group behaviour in fires there fore has the tendency of being violent and frenzied and as Kuusinen (2007) aptly explains, a throttle at the exit route may create clogging and arching causing a jam to build up. In a jam, the crowds’ pushing at the back can lead to fatal pressures being exerted at the front.

In addition, a snowball or domino effect is likely to be experienced whereby the actions of all members boil over and cause a ripple effect to the entire group. Stampedes can easily ensue and in such cases, people are very likely to be killed from being trampled on during the stampede as opposed to burns or smoke inhalation.

Read More