4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Public Perceptions of High-rise Building Emergency Evacuation Preparedness

Journal

FIRE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 329-336

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10694-008-0057-5

Keywords

high-rise building; emergency preparedness; evacuation procedures; public perceptions; public attitudes; fire drill; fire safety; survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In light of the events of September 11, 2001, a concern in the fire safety community is that the public attitudes toward emergency evacuation procedures and preparedness may have changed and that current assumptions about occupant behavior may no longer be valid. In 2006, a survey of high-rise building occupants was conducted to explore their knowledge of high-rise building safety and emergency evacuation procedures and their attitudes and perceptions about high-rise safety and emergency evacuation procedures. Some 244 residential building occupants in Chicago, New York City and San Francisco and 228 commercial building occupants in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, and Philadelphia were surveyed. The study revealed that the events of September 11, 2001 have heightened occupants concerns about safety in high-rise buildings. Eight in ten commercial building respondents participated in a fire drill in the last year, compared to 18% of residential building respondents. Among both survey respondents, the most frequent top-of-mind suggestion to building management to improve safety was more fire drills. Almost all occupants know where the fire exits are. And, keeping with conventional wisdom, most occupants believe using elevators is unsafe during a fire, however, 28% also believe that going to the roof is a possible alternative to using the stairs. These findings support the need for continued public education about emergency evacuations procedures in high-rise buildings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available