The Relevant Characteristics of Human Behavior in Fire Incidents - Term Paper Example

umаn Bеhаviоur in Fire Incidents Name Institution Da Table of Contents Нumаn Bеhаviоur in Fire Incidents 1 Name 1 Introduction 3 1. Factors relevant to the individual 3 1.1 Physical limitations 3 Cognitive ability limitations 4 Acquaintance with physical setting 5 2. Factors which are relevant to groups and the additional dimensions resulting from family assembling together 6 2.1Size of the group 6 2.2 structure of the group 7 2.3 Permanence of the group 7 2.4 Gender: Males/females 8 3. Impact of the physical setting 9 3.1 Location of exits 9 3.2 Number of exits 9 3.3 Height of structure 10 3.4 Fire-warning systems 10 3.5 Fire suppression systems 10 4. Impact of the characteristics of the fire 11 4.1 Presence of flames 12 4.2 Presence of smoke 12 4.3 Effects of toxic gases and oxygen depletion 12 5. Specific fire incidents where particular characteristics have influenced the outcome 13 5.1 Fire behavior on the Cramer Fire 13 5.2 Human behavior on the Cramer Fire 14 6.0 Conclusion 17 Bibliography 17 Introduction There exist various factors that influence a person’s or groups’ human behavior before, during and after a fire breakout. These factors are largely categorized and assessed as traits of the individual, characteristics of given groups, aspects of the physical setting in addition to characteristics of the fire or the explosion. These aspects and their interaction with each other offers an important insight regarding how fire-related human behaviors affect any given fire incident (Gamble, 2007, Pg 11). This essay will discuss the relevant characteristics of human behavior that can affect the cause and outcome of a fire and the significance to the fire investigation (NFPA 2011, Pg 91). 1. Factors relevant to the individual Characteristics of the individual affect fire-allied human behavior in various ways. The characteristics of the individual include physiological factors and this comprises of physical limitations, cognitive ability limitations as well as being knowledgeable of the physical setting. According to NFPA (2011, Pg 99) a number of factors have an impact on the capability of the individual recognizing and correctly assessing the risks presented by a fire incident and also the ability of the individual to respond as required to those risks. 1.1 Physical limitations There are various physical limitations that can have an effect on the ability of an individual to identify and respond as required to the dangers presented by a fire event and these limitations consist of the age, whereby there can be limited mobility with the elderly or the infants, physical disabilities, drunkenness, weakening or serious injuries or medical conditions, in addition to any other circumstance that can restrict the mobility of an individual. Basically, these physical limitations are supposed to be taken into account during evaluation of an individual’s fire-related human behavior since they normally limit the ability of an individual to take the necessary action when responding to a fire incident. In most cases, physical limitations normally affect the elderly and the very young individuals (NFPA 2011, Pg 98). Cognitive ability limitations The cognitive ability limitations that can have an effect on the ability of an individual to identify and suitably respond to the dangers resulting from the fire event consist of age, and age entails mental capability, how restful an individual is, alcohol or drug usage, developmental disabilities, mental disease, along with inhaling of smoke or gases that are toxic (NFPA 2011, Pg 98). In general, the cognitive ability limitations have a higher likelihood of affecting the ability of an individual to correctly evaluate and identify the dangers that a fire or explosion incident presents. In most cases, cognitive ability limitations result to delayed or wrong responses to dangers presented by the fire incidents. For instance, a child may not identify the danger that the fire incident poses and can opt to take an unsuitable response, like hiding or looking for his/her parents. Acquaintance with physical setting Basically, an individual’s acquaintance with the physical setting where the fire breaks out can have an effect on the behavior of an individual. It is evident that if an individual is more familiar with the physical setting can have a better response than an individual who is not familiar with the physical setting in case of a fire incident. For instance, an individual would be in a better position to correctly judge a fire’s development and progression within his/her own house as compared to in a hotel. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that physical and cognitive limitations can reduce the advantage of being familiar with the physical setting. As a result, even if such an individual was in an extremely familiar place like his/her home, the individual might look like he is “lost” within his/her own home (Fahy 2009, Pg 4-5). Real example A good example is King’s Cross fire that occurred on 18th November 1987 at King’s Cross on the London Underground. 31 individuals died (Chambers 2006, Pg 1). Obviously, the factor of acquaintance with physical setting played a big role in this fire incident. It is expected that the passengers were not so familiar with the physical setting of King’s Cross and thus their response was a bit poor compared to if they were in a more familiar setting and this greatly contributed to the fatalities. Another obvious factor notable in this fire incident is physical limitations. For instance, a 73-year-old man, named Alexander Fallon from Scotland was among the dead people, and this indicates that probably due to his old age was not able to escape. 2. Factors which are relevant to groups and the additional dimensions resulting from family assembling together Normally, individuals’ fire-related behaviors are influenced by more than one of their characteristics and obviously when an individual interacts with other people there is a likelihood of his/her behavior changing. Additionally, an individual’s behavior can be further changed through his or her interaction with a given group and its characteristics. The characteristics of a group take account of the size of the group, structure of the group, permanence of the group as well as the roles and norms of the particular group (NFPA 2008, Pg 98). 2.1Size of the group Generally, when individuals are in a group, such individuals have a lower likelihood of recognizing or responding suitably to the sensory signals presented by a fire incident. This propensity of this tendency rises with the increase of the group size. This implies that the larger the group size, the lower likelihood of the individuals to recognize and respond to a fire incident appropriately and vice versa. According to (NFPA 2011, Pg 99), this particular fore-allied human behavior takes place because individuals within groups delay their reactions to such fire sensory clues, until other individuals within the group also recognize these fire clues and respond. In addition, studies show that this takes place because the responsibility of taking the required response action is essentially diffused among the group members. 2.2 structure of the group The structure of the group has an effect on the fire-related behavior of the group as well as on the individual group members. Normally, in a circumstance where a group has a formal structure with defined and acknowledged leaders or acknowledged authority, the group has a tendency of responding to a fire incident much faster and in an orderly manner as compared to a group without a defined leader or recognized authority figures. Nevertheless, the response is not always suitable. Examples of these groups comprise schools, hospitals, nursing homes, worshipping places and such. According to research, interactions among individual group members lead in a sense of responsibility for the entire group. Therefore, an individual has a higher likelihood of warning other group members of the dangers of the fire incident as compared to a situation where the individual was interacting with a group of unfamiliar people. In addition, in an event where a group does not recognize a fire breakout, their vital orderliness and cohesiveness has a likelihood of resulting in a more well-ordered response to any such danger presented by the fire incident (Fahy 2009, Pg 2). 2.3 Permanence of the group Essentially, group permanence is about the duration a given group of individuals has interacted with each other or how well established a group is. The permanence of a group affects the behavior of the group along with the individual group members. Generally, more established groups, for instance families or sport clubs are more formalized and structured and consequently are deemed to react in a different manner to a fire incident as compared to a new group, like a restaurant population. In this illustration, the restaurant population group has a higher likelihood of exhibiting a host of contradictory individual behaviors since every group member will react to the fire incident on his/her own (NFPA 2008, Pg 98-99). Real example King’s Cross fire illustrates the group effect on the behavior of people during a fire incident. Size of the group factor played a role here. The size of the group was relatively big and this led to poor response to the fire incident. The group did not also have a formal structure and thus response to the incident was a bit slow and no wonder the incident resulted to so many fatalities according to the investigation report produced. 2.4 Gender: Males/females Basically, gender role mostly is a key factor in case of a fire breakout. According to several studies, females have a higher likelihood of reporting a fire incident instantly, whereas men might delay to report a similar fire incident, preferring to take part in suppressing the fire or engaging in other mitigation efforts (NFPA 2011, Pg 99). Real Example A rubbish fire occurred on 4th February 2013 within Chester. Apparently, a woman called the firefighters to tackle a rubbish fire on Knutsford Way within Chester. When the firefighters arrived at the scene they found a small quantity of rubbish on fire and utilized a hose reel jet to put off the fire. According to the argument of NFPA (2011, Pg 99), the gender factor contributed greatly to the reporting of this incident to the fire fighters. Probably if the incident involved a man, the man would have tried to put off the rubbish fire by himself because the fire was not very big. 3. Impact of the physical setting The characteristics of the physical setting where a fire incident takes place have an impact on the development as well as to the spreading of fire. In addition, characteristics of the physical setting influence fire-related behavior. Some of the physical setting characteristics that affect fire-related behavior consist of exits’ location, height of the structure, number of exits, fire-warning structures as well as fire suppression structures (NFPA 2008, Pg 99). 3.1 Location of exits Normally, the location of available exits in an event of fire breakout has an effect on the behavior of the individuals within the affected building. If the building occupants do not know where the exits are located or if the occupants are not able to identify the exits adequately, such occupants are likely to get confused and become extremely anxious. 3.2 Number of exits The number of the exits that are available in an event of fire breakout can impact the behavior of the people within the affected building. In case the number of exits is not enough, blocked or constrained exits, the occupants of the building might end up being exposed to the fire and its dangerous by-products. 3.3 Height of structure The height of a structure might have an impact on the behavior of the individuals within the structure in case of a fire incident. For example, some individuals have a belief that they are safer within low buildings during fire outbreaks. 3.4 Fire-warning systems Fire-warning systems such as fire alarm systems in a building can be important in informing individuals regarding a fire breakout. Studies have also shown that verbal, directive messages are more effective in individuals’ awareness than alarm bells. Again, false alarms and malfunctioning of alarm system can lower the positive effect of a fire alarm system since individuals might not respond suitably to the alarm warnings. Consequently, frequent false alarms lower individuals’ proper responses to the alarm (NFPA 2011, Pg 99). 3.5 Fire suppression systems If occupants are aware of the automatic fire suppression systems in a building, it can affect their fire-related behavior. The effect of fire suppression systems can be positive or negative. A positive effect is having higher safety margin of the systems gives individuals within the affected building more time to respond suitably to the dangers presented by the incident. On the other hand, an illustration of a negative effect is likely reduced visibility resulting from production of the suppression agent, which might hinder egress. Real example The example of King’s Cross fire will be used again where 31 individuals died. In this case, fire warning systems played a critical role in informing the London Fire Brigade and in this case through radio (Chambers 2006, Pg 4-5). Location of exits also affected the people’s behaviors where most of these people were trapped below ground because they had no idea where the exits were. Those who tried to leave through the Midland City platforms were hindered by locked gates and this further hindered their escape. Overcrowding during this fire incident was also noted and this could have resulted from the number of exits, whereby they were few forcing people to use the few available exits, which could have made them confused and thereby adversely affected their behavior. 4. Impact of the characteristics of the fire Fire-related human behavior has a direct effect on the insight of an individual or a group regarding the dangers the fire incident presents to such people. Accordingly, characteristics of the fire tend to shape such insights and hence have an effect on fire-related human behavior. Some characteristics of fire encompass existence of flames/smoke, impact of toxic gases in addition to depletion of oxygen. 4.1 Presence of flames Most people are not much informed regarding the dangers that fire incidents presents and this is a factual problem to people’s observation on presence of visible flames. The presence of flames notifies a person that it is not a false alarm and that there is some danger. Nonetheless, since individuals have less understanding concerning fire dynamics and fire behavior, people may not recognize the sight of small flames as an instant danger, and the ensuing behavior is based on such a belief. 4.2 Presence of smoke Presence of smoke affects fire-related human behavior and similarly lack of fire dynamics and fire behavior understanding can lead to flawed insights regarding the smoke. For example, people can view dense, black smoke as an immediate danger and at the same time may not perceive light, gray smoke as being an immediate danger. 4.3 Effects of toxic gases and oxygen depletion When a fire incident occurs, present individuals normally inhale fire by-products and this consists of poisonous gases within the smoke. In addition, fire development and the presence of other gases in most cases leads to oxygen depletion. When an individual inhales the toxic gases or low oxygen concentration levels less than 15 percent, his/her behavior can be affected resulting to changes in both perception and behavior as well. Such changes can be manifested through delayed or unsuitable responses to the fire event. More importantly, strength, stamina, mental perception as well as perceptual capability can all be rigorously reduced. Real example Here, the example of the Taunton sleeping car fire will be used which took place within a sleeping car train at Taunton, England on 6th July 1978 and left 12 individual dead and many injured. The fire resulted from obstruction of an electric heater resulting to overheating of the heater. No one noticed anything amiss but linen bags kept on heating up and eventually began producing toxic gases, consisting of carbon monoxide. Basically, by the time the fire was discovered, most victims were had died due to carbon monoxide poisoning and others were not able to escape due to poisoning and clouded smoke (Hall 1987, Pg 4). In this case, inhalation of toxic gases, especially carbon monoxide by the victims affected their behaviors which resulted to changes in perception and their behavior as well. These changes can be identified through unsuitable responses to the fire event where the victims who had inhaled the toxic gases were not able to escape. 5. Specific fire incidents where particular characteristics have influenced the outcome 5.1 Fire behavior on the Cramer Fire In Cramer Fire incident, two helitack crew members succumbed in a catastrophic burn-over on the Cramer Fire on 22nd July 2003. Cramer Fire provides a vital lesson in human interaction with fast changes during a fire incident and the resulting fire behavior. Using Cramer Fire, this discussion will critique the perception that the real problem during a fire incident is how human being perceive and respond to the fire behavior and vital changes within the fire setting and not the fire behavior itself. 5.2 Human behavior on the Cramer Fire Here, I will make a critical analysis of human behavior on the Cramer Fire and focus on events that had a direct effect on the fire line. One notable human behavior is human beings do not expect the unexpected. In this case, there were forceful winds and no one expected that the winds would change to westerly and then north-westerly. The NWS office never perceived that conditions experienced on that day required a Red Flag Warning and the office did not issue any warning to its workers, even being aware of hot and dry weather conditions as well as an imminent wind incident that had a probability of having an effect on the Cramer Fire and other project fires within the area (Close 2005, Pg 10). In the morning the fire weather forecast had provided the Cramer Fire staff with information on that on that day the winds would be different. On the same day, NWS office called for a westerly flow moving to northwesterly extremely fast. Numerous staff members assigned to the Cramer Fire later made remarks that the weather seemed strange but they dismissed the weather forecast since NWS forecasts was somehow unreliable (Close 2005, Pg 10). Here the presence of smoke and the human behavior in a group will be analyzed. On that day mid-afternoon, several individuals in the air saw smoke coming from the brush into the lower section of the Cache Bar drainage. Some of the group members of the staff members had a feeling that the smoke posed a very low probability of danger. They felt that brush fields hindered fire spread and the local crew members frequently used such tactics. The group members felt that any fire spread within the Cache Bar drainage was likely within the light grass and brush, and with the typical diurnal winds the personnel expected, the probable fire behavior was perceived as not being a serious danger to staff members at H-2. But normally this is not the case when plants in the brush fields experience drought. Most people had a common perception that everything was normal but evidently the Cramer perceptions were not real (Close 2005, Pg 10). Funnily, there was no continuous communication to other group member assigned to monitor the situation. As mentioned earlier, this could be because of lack of concern considering the anticipated weather and the expected benign nature of the brush fields under H-2. This is in addition to the belief that the two rappellers were in a position to finish their task and leave H-2 before the burn period peaked and this indicates that the group members did not have appropriate understanding on fire dynamics and fire behavior (Close 2005, Pg 11). What’s more, the rappelers who were among the group members had a discussion of escape routes as well as safety zones with the assistant helitack foreman although it is not clear if they examined the escape routes and safety zones physically. This brings out the issue of familiarity with the physical setting. Clearly the two rappelers were not familiar with the physical setting and this greatly contributing to increasing the hazard the fire incident presented to them. This is illustrated by indications that the rappelers did not perceive the hazard that loomed, even after noticing active smokes below them on the Cramer Creek part, which clearly indicated possibility of fire developing below them (Close 2005, Pg 11). The smoke continued growing thick but they were not much concerned which can be attributed to them not viewing the smoke as indication of potential danger. Moreover, when they eventually made a decision to leave, they were very calm and did not seem to be aware of any eminent danger. They packed calmly and then called for a chopper ride out. The slow decision making characteristic can be attributed to group fire-related behavior where if people are many they respond to a fire emergency much slower than when it involves a single individual. As the fire increased below them, as well as the smoke, they never perceived importance of going to a safety zone (Sklet 2008, Pg 35). In the last moments prior to the fire reaching where they were, they suddenly discovered that the chopper would not reach them due to smoke and they started trying to evacuate on foot. Some events of this incident show that they might have tried reaching safety zone on foot but probably they waited for too long before making this decision and the advancing fire prevented them from accessing the safety zone. In addition, events show that they might have tried to deploy fire shelters, but the fire was growing so fast and fire shelters were later discovered in their cases but not deployed (Close 2005, Pg 11). Basically, some factors that contributed to the hazard and death of the two crew members include physical setting, characteristics of fire, in this case the smoke, being in a group and unfamiliarity with the physical setting. The crew members did not recognize presence of smoke as an immediate danger to them, and also they were not so familiar with the physical setting of the structure which led to them not to access the safety zone on time (Close 2005, Pg 11). The group characteristic also might have led them into taking too long to make a decision to exit the structure because they might have discussed the issue and perceived that the fire was not an immediate danger to them. This made them take too long to recognize the immediate danger, which saw them take safety precautions when it was already too late (Bland 2009, Pg 53). 6.0 Conclusion Several characteristics such as, individual aspects, physical setting, location of warning systems, characteristics of fire and such affect the behavior of an individual or a group of people during a fire incident. These characteristics and how they interact with each during a fire incident provide a basis on how human behaviors affect a particular fire incident. An example of a fire incident where human behavior evidently affected the fire incident is the Fire behavior on the Cramer Fire. Bibliography Bland, R., 2009, Fire Prevention and Control, National Commission, Washington DC. Close, K., 2005, Fire Behavior vs. Human Behavior: Why the Lessons from Cramer Matter, Wildland Fire Safety, Missoula, MT. Fahy, R., 2009, Panic and human behavior in fire, Robinson College, Cambridge. Gamble, J., 2007, Summary Fire Statistics in UK, Gartson, Hertfordshire. NFPA, 2011, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, NFPA, Batterymarch Park. Sklet, S., 2008, Methods for accident investigation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Hall S., 1987, Danger Signals: an investigation into modern railway accidents, Ian Allan. Chambers, P., 2006, Body 115: The Story of the Last Victim of the King's Cross Fire, John Wiley & Sons, London. Read More