Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings: Is the Stay-Put Tactic a Misjudgement or Magnificent Strategy?

Historically, fire incidents in high-rise buildings reveal that Fire and Rescue Services frequently rely on the stay-put tactic (i.e., occupants of high-rise buildings should remain in their apartments) during an inferno. Recent fire occurrences in high-rise buildings reveal that there are two opposing viewpoints on the stay-put tactic. First, the understanding that the stay-put tactic is a beneficial practice used to protect, control, and facilitate smooth evacuation of occupants during fire incidents. Second, the argument that the stay-put tactic is a misjudgement and futile strategy that leads to fatalities, particularly in high-rise buildings. The aim of this study was to provide awareness and understanding of fire and rescue services use of the stay-put tactic in high-rise buildings. We attempted to answer the questions: is the stay-put tactic a misjudgement or magnificent strategy? The study adopted phenomenological research strategies with various focus groups consisting of seasoned firefighters and survivors with first-hand accounts of stay-put instructions in high-rise buildings. The study also scrutinised three case studies of fire incidents in high-rise buildings in two countries. The study revealed that the stay-put tactic is obsolete; with the potential to cause catastrophic misjudgement, mostly during conflagrations in high-rise buildings. There is a need to advance research on the use of artificial intelligence communication systems and infrared image detectors camera to enhance quick and smooth fire evacuation in high-rise buildings.

[1]  Jing Xin,et al.  Fire risk analysis of residential buildings based on scenario clusters and its application in fire risk management , 2013 .

[2]  S. Kvale.  The 1,000-Page Question , 1996 .

[3]  Graham Scott.  Grenfell Tower tragedy echoes the public safety issues of Mid Staffs. , 2017, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[4]  F. Chiclana,et al.  Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making , 2018 .

[5]  Enrico Ronchi,et al.  Fire evacuation in high-rise buildings: a review of human behaviour and modelling research , 2013 .

[6]  Jason K. Levy,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management , 2005 .

[7]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Designing for decision making , 2012 .

[8]  Naim Kapucu,et al.  Collaborative Decision-Making in Emergency and Disaster Management , 2011 .

[9]  Kai Fischbach,et al.  Collective behaviour, Social Media, and disasters: a Systematic literature Review , 2016, ECIS.

[10]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews , 2002 .

[11]  Timothy L. Sellnow,et al.  Chaos theory, informational needs, and natural disasters , 2002 .

[12]  Karen Boyce,et al.  Experimental studies to investigate merging behaviour in a staircase , 2012 .

[13]  Xiaonan Li,et al.  Three-way decisions approach to multiple attribute group decision making with linguistic information-based decision-theoretic rough fuzzy set , 2018, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[14]  Kouichi Taji,et al.  Group decision support for hazards planning and emergency management: A Group Analytic Network Process (GANP) approach , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[15]  Joachim Funke,et al.  Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? , 2010, Cognitive Processing.

[16]  Xin Zhang,et al.  Study on rapid evacuation in high-rise buildings , 2017 .

[17]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Towards Public Accountability: beyond Sampling, Reliability and Validity , 2000 .

[18]  L. Comfort,et al.  Complex Systems in Crisis: Anticipation and Resilience in Dynamic Environments , 2001 .

[19]  Marja Kuzmanić.  Validity in qualitative research: Interview and the appearance of truth through dialogue , 2009 .

[20]  Steinar Kuale.  The 1000-Page Question , 1944 .