Analysis of People Behaviors in Fires - Literature review Example

Name Course Institution Lecturer Date Analysis of people behaviors in fires Literature Review It is extremely crucial to understand the fundamental perceptions of human behavior in order to visualize the likely response of a building’s occupants during an emergency. The behavior of a person is a methodical trend that identifies the ideas, facts and relationships created via experimentation and logical observation. According to Proulx (2001), what people know concerning human behavior during a fire breakout is the three scopes of emergency interacting to explicate or foretell the response of occupants. Fire is one of the recurring scourges in the history of humankind. Fires that cause loss and damage occur wherever there are human activities. Buildings are the most frequent locations for fire disasters. This includes both domestic and nondomestic buildings that can later expand to a wide range of occupancy including factories, and public buildings that pose certain risks to the public (Rasbash, 2004). For many years, numerous fire outbreaks have caused considerable damages on people and property. Sime (1994) asserts that fire disasters have inflicted considerable costs on people because fire outbreaks destroy people’s property and cost people their lives. Whenever there is a fire outbreak, the response of people comes after people receive cues to evacuate the burning building. Some of the common cues used in case of a fire outbreak include automated fire alarms, verbal instructions and consensus among the affected individuals. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) assert that numerous reactions take place after people receive cues, and there reaction range from rapid evacuation to taking no action at all. The responses of the occupants depend on several factors including previous experience, the magnitude of the threat caused by the fire, and whether the cues are ambiguous or real (Selye, 1979). Occupants of a burning building respond in different ways such as establishing the cause of the fire, calling the fire brigade, panicking, informing others and evacuating the building among other responses. Numerous studies concerning fire outbreaks indicate that the response of occupants depends on different factors such as age, sex, occupation and most critical is the previous fore evacuation experience. Brennan (1999) observed that every event of a fire out break consists of panic and disarray. There is always a lot of confusion and disorder as people try to escape in the quickest way possible to save their lives. Sekizawa et al. (1998) argue that there is a lot of emphasis on dealing with panic, especially in areas that involve large masses of people. Many buildings do not have adequate fire protection equipments. Years of data indicate that people extinguish or control approximately 96% of fires using automatic sprinklers of the building has proper equipments (Baker, 2009). The remaining percentage (4%) usually result from premature shutting off of water, inadequate sprinkler protection, faulty building construction, inadequate sprinkler protection, obstructed piping, disrupted flow from heads, hazards of the occupancy, inadequate maintenance and outdated equipment (Baker, 2009). When a fire disaster strikes, the nature of the obtained information, the assessment of the danger and the limited reaction time creates a feeling of stress among e occupants. This stress is a normal state because it motivates action and reaction among participants. According to Proulx (1993), the intensity of the experienced stress varies depending on the newly perceived information and evaluation of the taken resolution. The information provided by McFadden (n.d) concerning the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC also indicates that there was little panic during the evacuation, though the inhabitants had moved down the smoke and crowded stairs in full darkness. There were no orders from building officials or recognized emergency officials after the explosion. In addition, nobody provided any official information concerning safe and proposed exit routes. However, there was an organized atmosphere of systematic evacuation after the disaster struck (Fahy & Proulx, 1995). Thought he 1993 explosion cased immediate danger, the lack of fear during the 1993 explosion could be because the occupants did not perceive the explosion as severe. In addition, there were different people in the building such as co-worker, associates and friends. The presence of other people creates a social web of integration among the occupants. This web operates against the acceptance of norms that withhold competitive behaviors. It favors the materialization of selfless, helping, cooperative and organized behavior (Wegner et al. 1994). This behavior contrasts the panic situation depicted by the BBC (2001) in the 2001 attack on the WTC. The behavior of occupants in the 1993 attack of the WTC did not portray panic as a key response. Contrary detached people attempted to reunite before the evacuation. There was a communication process that people used in an effort to describe the situation, and suggest or implement the correct norms and take collective action (Wegner et al. 1994). In the 1993 case, there was a lot of interaction in the evacuation procedure. Occupants participated in cooperative behavior concerning the description of the problem, the attempt to explicate the disaster, the appropriate response or proposed cues, and attempt to direct the behavior of occupants (Wegner et al. 1994). This information demonstrates that people will not always panic in case of a disaster. Therefore, the ordinary belief that people panic during a disaster is not true and needs additional research. The three main cases of fire emergency The following section presents three different fire incidences that are helpful in determining the behavior of people in case of an emergency concerning fire. The cases include the September 11, 2001 attack at the World Trade Centre, the October 29, 1998 fire at the Gothenburg Discotheque and fire at China’s Tai Po Centre. The researcher finds it crucial to use renowned cases in order to present conclusions that are applicable in real life situations. World Trade Centre Attack, USA, September 11, 2001 An excellent example of a popular case is the attack on the WTC in 2001, in the USA. Terrorists crashed two planes into the building whereby the jet fuel exploded and set the two towers on fire. This fire is a real life towering fire disaster, which is among the worst fire disasters ever (Weil, 2012). This disaster portrays panic as one of the key characteristics of occupants of a building whenever a fire disaster occurs. After the September 11, 2001 attack on the WTC, the British Broadcast Corporation posted an online article titled “Panic in the stairs”, which was on the headline news (BBC, 2001). The article presents a report from inhabitants of the twin towers, who explain their experiences during the disaster. One of the inhabitants quoted said there was panic in the stairwells before the terror struck the second tower. Some of the interviewees reported that people started to crowd the elevators and stairwells. On the other hand, other survivors reported that nervousness, panic and cry moods engulfed the occupants of the building. However, some additional research on this incidence indicates that panic was not a key reaction to the WTC fire incidence. According to research, 50% of the occupants were calm, 31% as upset and characterized by shouting, crying, anxious, nervousness while 19% had panic depicted by their behavior of pushing, shoving and general behavior full of chaos. One survivor from 70th floor reported that, as the second plane hit the second tower, people reacted by scrambling down the stairs, yelling and pushing everywhere. The videos captured indicated the state of panic, upset and calls for help as a few of the numerous responses that came from different occupants. According to McFadden (n.d), there was little panic the WTC attack in 1993, but witnesses said that there was confusion in the dark and crowded stairwells. There were smoke and unknown dangers that lurked below. This could help the reaction of people in the 2001 attack on the WTC. Following the factors that contribute to increased stress, stress could be a key characteristic of the people involved in the 2001 incidence. However, it is not easy to conclude because of the various opinions of researchers concerning the behavior of people during a fire outbreak. It appears that people tend to assume that people stop to act in a predictable and organized manner in case of a disaster and that the customs that direct people’s behaviors crumple into a condition of lack of rules (Fischer, 1998). The movie industry and the mass media seem to nourish this disaster mythology because they capitalize in strong touching images. In the contemporary world, people know that, in the presence of a stressful tragedy, there is the deficiency of irrational, extensive, dysfunctional and unsociable behavior that people describe as panic. However, this common belief is largely false. The WTC attack is a clear indicator that panic behavior is a rare behavior exhibited by people in case of a fire disaster. Decision-making appears to be a key problem that affected the inhabitants of the house. However, it is also critical to note that decision-making differs from time to time due to three different factors (Janis & Mann, 1977). First, there is a problem in making emergency decisions in such a situation because of the presence of valued individuals. Some people had extreme difficulties in deciding what emergency decision to make because of the imbedding worries concerning the survival of valued persons who faced the same risk. People exhibited high levels of anxiety after the disaster occurred. This could be due to the eager to know what was happening and what would happen next. BBC (2001) presents an account of a participant who was extremely worried about his loved one and what would happen to them. The 2001 WTC fire presents an amalgamation of different behaviors that people exhibit during a fire emergency. While some media and researchers reported panic, anxiety and worry as the main characteristics, other media and researchers portray a calm and orderly behavior among participants. This creates the need for additional research on the behavior of participants because the available literature concerning the 2001 WTC attack provides multiple conclusions. Gothenburg Discotheque Fire, Sweden, October 29, 1998 The Gothenburg Fire outbreak that happened in October 29 1998 is another critical case in the study of the behavior of people in times of fire disasters. Reported information indicates that panic ensured after the discovery of the fire. The fire started in one stairwells of the discotheque of a two-storey building. The approved capacity of the upstairs dance hall was 150 patrons, but during the fateful night, the hall held approximately 400 young people (Fahy, Proulx & Aiman, 2009). In an attempt to secure their lives, patrons started to rush towards the only available exist. This led to more disaster because there was a lot of crushing and congested in the available exit. This crushing and congestion led to the death of at least 60 people and more than 200 injured people in the Discotheque. The first people who became aware of the fire cues portrayed a fascinating reaction to fire. The first patrons who sensed the smell of smoke tended to ignore the forewarning and continued to dance. One of the DJs tried to warn people about the fire, but many people continued to ignore the warning and continued to dance. This is a fascinating behavior that people ignore the existence of a potential danger of a fire outbreak. Fahy, Proulx, and Aiman (2009) assert that one person who had seen the smoke left though he had not seen the fire. Interestingly, another person contemplated that the DJ was joking concerning the impending disaster. This is an implication that some people are extremely ignorant of any warning concerning the outbreak of a fire. This is probably an area of weakness, which led to the disastrous outcomes of the tragedy. The fire began on one of the available stairwells. Smoke and heat spread in the entire hall and after opening the door to the stairwell. The transcript from the first person was that there was panic within the hall (Fahy, Proulx & Aiman, 2009). Dispatchers had trouble in determining how to address the fire. The presence of extreme heat and smoke caused people to rush towards the only available door, which had an opening of 80 cm wide. Panic caused people to respond quickly as most of them rushed to the single door. The disco hall was full of chaos as people tried to get out of the building. People started to trample on one another in an attempt toe exit through a single door. This led to a crush that formed a stack of dead bodies in the opening. The state of panic caused some people to jump off the building after kicking the windows of the building (BBC, 1998). The investigation conducted on the incidence indicated that the building did not have a proper design that could handle such a situation. In addition, the building had only one available door, which the occupants could use to evade the calamity. The upper flow had 13 windows and some of them had security bars that prevented people from escaping the disaster. This case indicates a lack of preparedness and creates the need to explore the various ways of improving fire safety. The above scenario indicates that, in the advent of a potential fire, some people may tend to dismiss the warning. In addition, people start to react when there is enough evidence concerning a fire outbreak. People exhibit a panic-stricken behavior and start to find the possible way of escaping from a building. Panic causes people to become disorderly, and this explains why people rushed towards the door and caused a commotion at the available opening. People run towards the only available opening despite the severe congestion. Such behavior is the key cause of chaos and death because people struggle with one another instead of using an orderly method to escape the fire disaster. This case creates the need for employing relevant techniques to influence the behavior of people in case of a disaster. People tend to react rapidly without thinking about the consequences of a certain decision. It is vital to provide people with adequate information concerning the use of available options in an appropriate manner. This will help to avoid unnecessary chaos and death. The people involved in this case seem not to understand the appropriate decisions that they should make in an attempt to respond to the fire outbreak. Tai Po Fire Incidence, 1997, China The Tai Po fire incidence is another memorable incidence that happened in china in the year 1997. This incidence is helpful in the assessment of the behavior of people in case a fire disaster strikes. The incidence occurred on the 11th floor of a flat in China’s Tai Po Centre at around 12 am (Lo, Lam, Yuen and Fang, 2009). During this fateful night, one of the families in the building lit a candle during a festival and forgot to put the candle off. The lantern that was next to the candle caught fire and the fire became extreme by the time the family realized. The residents of the building noticed large balls of smoke spreading in the interior of the building, and heading to the staircase. In this case, most of the occupants of the building were asleep and woke up because of the choking smoke. The high intensity of smoke caused some occupants to escape through the roof instead of using the normal staircase to go down. There was a lot of confusion and panic hit the occupants as they tried to find the appropriate technique of escaping the disaster. Some occupants reacted by converging into some room, which the occupants thought were safe from fire. This act of convergence tends to minimize stress and anxiety. This act is extremely helpful as fire frighteners can access the occupants at one location of the building. Some occupants reportedly applied the technique of re-entry, whereby they went back in an effort to fight the fire, safe pets and save their personal belongings. It is surprising to note that many survivors could recount they way they managed to escape the building by passing through the thick smoke. Most occupants had lived in the building for many years and were familiar with the exit doors that helped the participants to maneuver their way despite the thick smoke. The above cases indicate that people will react to a fire incidence when they get a perceived sign such as smoke, bell and word of warning from other people. In some cases, such as the case of Tai Po Centre, people live in residential units (fire tight cells). In such a case, unless the people have enough information concerning the building they will not respond to the incidence effectively. Whether a person will accept, recognize or ignore a cue depends on the person’s willingness and attention to a given activity. For instance, in the case of the Gothenburg Discotheque Fire, some people received a warning concerning the fire, but continued to dance instead of reacting to the fire. Some people just decide to take no action at all. On the other hand, others decided to walk out to take some fresh air due to the choking smoke. After people recognize the cue of a potential fire, they undergo a series of decision-making processes. According to Lo, Lam, Yuen and Fang (2002), when people note a cue, they start to validate its seriousness. Unfortunately, in many occasions, the sign may not indicate the seriousness of the impeding danger. People tend to access clues depending on experiences and in the form of optimistic acceptance. People will then take the next step after they validate the effectiveness of the available cue. In some cases, people exhibit panic such as in the Gothenburg Discotheque case and the Tai Po fire. However, panic is rare irrational behavior in most fire disasters. In other cases such as the WTC fire, people tend to cooperate and think about the danger and the possible ways of escaping. All the three cases indicate that people behave differently in case there is a fire outbreak. The behavior of the people involves varies from person to person. List of references Baker, F 2008, 'Fireground Strategies & Tactics: Understanding how the private sector can help improve fire outcomes', Professional Safety, 53, 3, pp. 37-45, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 December 2012. BBC, 1998. World: Europe Sweden Mourns Disco Tragedy. [Online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/204332.stm [Accessed 3 December 2012]. BBC, 2001. Panic on the Stairs. [Online] Available at: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm [Accessed 3 Dec, 2012]. Brennan, P. 1999. Victims and survivors in fatal residential building fires- Centre for Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering. Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Fahy, R. and Proulx, G. 1995. Collective Common Sense: A Study of the human behavior during the World Trade Centre evacuation, NFPA Journal, Vol. 89, No. 2. Fahy, R., Proulx, G. and Aiman, L. 2009. ‘Panic’ and Human Behavior in fire. National Research Council Canada. [Online] Available at: http://archive.nrc- cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc51384.pdf [Accessed 3 December 2012]. Janis, L. and Man, L. 1977. Decision Making. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Lo, S. M., Lam, K. C., Yuen, K.K. and Fang, Z., 2000. A Pre-evacuation behavioral study for the people in high-rise residential building under fire situations. International Journal on Engineering, vol. 2, No, 4, p.143-152. [Online] Available at: http://www.bse.polyu.edu.hk/researchCentre/Fire_Engineering/summary_of_output/journal/IJEPBFC/V2/p.143-152.pdf [Accessed 3 December 2012] Fischer, H. W., 1998. Response to Disaster. Fact versus Fiction and its Perpetuation. Maryland: University Press of America. Grossman, D., 2002. Critical Incident Amnesia: The psychological implications basis and the implications of memory loss during extreme survival situation, The Firearms Instructor, Issue 31. Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. McFadden, R. C., n.d. Blast Hits Trade Center, Bomb Suspected; 5 Killed, Thousands Flee Smoke in Towers. New York Times. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0226.html#article [Accessed 3 December 2012]. Proulx, G., 1993. A Stress model for people facing fire. Journal of environmental psychology, Vol. 13. Proulx, G., 2001. As the year 200, what do we know about accupant behavior in fire?, The Techical Basis for Performance Based Fire Regulations, United Engineering Foundation Conference, San Diego. Rasbash, D. et al. 2004. Evaluation of fire safety. West Sussex, England, J. Wiley & Sons. Sime, J. 1994. Escape behaviour in fires and evacuations in Stollard, P, Johnston, L (Eds), Design against Fire: An Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering Design. London: Chapman & Hall. Sekizawa, A. et al. 1998. Occupants' behaviour in Response to the High-Rise Apartments Fire. Belfast: University of Ulster. Selye, H. 1979.The Stress Concept and some of its Implications in V. Hamilton & D.M. Warburton Eds., Human Stress and Cognition. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Wegner, D., Aguirre, B. and Vigo, G. 1994. Evacuation Behavior among tenants of the World Trade Centet following the bombing of February 26. Texas: Harvard Recovery Center Publications Weil, Ann. 2012. Fire Disasters. Costa Mesa: Saddleback Pub. Read More

The information provided by McFadden (n.d) concerning the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC also indicates that there was little panic during the evacuation, though the inhabitants had moved down the smoke and crowded stairs in full darkness. There were no orders from building officials or recognized emergency officials after the explosion. In addition, nobody provided any official information concerning safe and proposed exit routes. However, there was an organized atmosphere of systematic evacuation after the disaster struck (Fahy & Proulx, 1995).

Thought he 1993 explosion cased immediate danger, the lack of fear during the 1993 explosion could be because the occupants did not perceive the explosion as severe. In addition, there were different people in the building such as co-worker, associates and friends. The presence of other people creates a social web of integration among the occupants. This web operates against the acceptance of norms that withhold competitive behaviors. It favors the materialization of selfless, helping, cooperative and organized behavior (Wegner et al. 1994). This behavior contrasts the panic situation depicted by the BBC (2001) in the 2001 attack on the WTC.

The behavior of occupants in the 1993 attack of the WTC did not portray panic as a key response. Contrary detached people attempted to reunite before the evacuation. There was a communication process that people used in an effort to describe the situation, and suggest or implement the correct norms and take collective action (Wegner et al. 1994). In the 1993 case, there was a lot of interaction in the evacuation procedure. Occupants participated in cooperative behavior concerning the description of the problem, the attempt to explicate the disaster, the appropriate response or proposed cues, and attempt to direct the behavior of occupants (Wegner et al. 1994). This information demonstrates that people will not always panic in case of a disaster.

Therefore, the ordinary belief that people panic during a disaster is not true and needs additional research. The three main cases of fire emergency The following section presents three different fire incidences that are helpful in determining the behavior of people in case of an emergency concerning fire. The cases include the September 11, 2001 attack at the World Trade Centre, the October 29, 1998 fire at the Gothenburg Discotheque and fire at China’s Tai Po Centre. The researcher finds it crucial to use renowned cases in order to present conclusions that are applicable in real life situations.

World Trade Centre Attack, USA, September 11, 2001 An excellent example of a popular case is the attack on the WTC in 2001, in the USA. Terrorists crashed two planes into the building whereby the jet fuel exploded and set the two towers on fire. This fire is a real life towering fire disaster, which is among the worst fire disasters ever (Weil, 2012). This disaster portrays panic as one of the key characteristics of occupants of a building whenever a fire disaster occurs. After the September 11, 2001 attack on the WTC, the British Broadcast Corporation posted an online article titled “Panic in the stairs”, which was on the headline news (BBC, 2001).

The article presents a report from inhabitants of the twin towers, who explain their experiences during the disaster. One of the inhabitants quoted said there was panic in the stairwells before the terror struck the second tower. Some of the interviewees reported that people started to crowd the elevators and stairwells. On the other hand, other survivors reported that nervousness, panic and cry moods engulfed the occupants of the building. However, some additional research on this incidence indicates that panic was not a key reaction to the WTC fire incidence.

According to research, 50% of the occupants were calm, 31% as upset and characterized by shouting, crying, anxious, nervousness while 19% had panic depicted by their behavior of pushing, shoving and general behavior full of chaos.

Read More