Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:08:58.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Associated with High-Rise Evacuation: Qualitative Results from the World Trade Center Evacuation Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Robyn R.M. Gershon ,
Kristine A. Qureshi ,
Marcie S. Rubin  and
Victoria H. Raveis
Robyn R.M. Gershon*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA
Kristine A. Qureshi
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA
Marcie S. Rubin
Affiliation:
Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA
Victoria H. Raveis
Affiliation:
Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA
*
Robyn R.M. Gershon, MHS, DrPH Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 600 West 168th Street, Room 408, New York, New York 10032USA E-mail: rg405@columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Due to the fact that most high-rise structures (i.e., >75 feet high, or eight to ten stories) are constructed with extensive and redundant fire safety features, current fire safety procedures typically only involve limited evacuation during minor to moderate fire emergencies. Therefore, full-scale evacuation of high-rise buildings is highly unusual and consequently, little is known about how readily and rapidly high-rise structures can be evacuated fully. Factors that either facilitate or inhibit the evacuation process remain under-studied.

Objective:

This paper presents results from the qualitative phase of the World Trade Center Evacuation Study, a three-year, five-phase study designed to improve our understanding of the individual, organizational, and environmental factors that helped or hindered evacuation from the World Trade Center (WTC) Towers 1 and 2, on 11 September 2001.

Methods:

Qualitative data from semi-structured, in-depth interviews and focus groups involving WTC evacuees were collected and analyzed.

Results:

On the individual level, factors that affected evacuation included perception of risk (formed largely by sensory cues), preparedness training, degree of familiarity with the building, physical condition, health status, and footwear. Individual behavior also was affected by group behavior and leadership. At the organizational level, evacuation was affected by worksite preparedness planning, including the training and education of building occupants, and risk communication. The environmental conditions affecting evacuation included smoke, flames, debris, general condition and degree of crowdedness on staircases, and communication infrastructure systems (e.g., public address, landline, cellular and fire warden's telephones).

Conclusions:

Various factors at the individual, organizational, and environmental levels were identified that affected evacuation. Interventions that address the barriers to evacuation may improve the full-scale evacuation of other high-rise buildings under extreme conditions. Further studies should focus on the development and evaluation of targeted interventions, including model emergency preparedness planning for high-rise occupancies.

Keywords

disastersevacuationhigh-rise buildingshuman behaviorshuman factorsorganizational factorsworkplace disastersWorld Trade Center
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 165 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region II Interagency Hazard Mitigation Survey Team: Interagency hazard mitigation survey team report in response to the 02 April 1993 Presidential Disaster Declaration for the State of New York. 1993. (FEMA-984-DR-NY), FEMA Region II, New York, New York.Google Scholar
2.Arnold, RL: Special Report:Oklahoma City. In:Disaster Recovery Journal, St. Louis, MO. Available at: http://www.drj.com/special/ok.html. Accessed 09 May 2006.Google Scholar
3.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data collection, preliminary observations, and recommendations. 2002. FEMA Region II, New York, New York.Google Scholar
4.Eachempati, SR, Mick, A, Barie, PS: The impact of the 2003 blackout on a Level-1 Trauma Center: Lessons learned and implications for injury prevention. J Trauma 2004;57:1127–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Fire in Chicago high-rise office building kills six. 2003. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/10/18/chicago.fire.ap. Accessed 13 March 2006.Google Scholar
6.Ciokajlo, M, Heinzmann, D: Loop high-rise fire injures twenty-five. Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0412070131 dec07,0,7685756.story?track=ctsearch. Accessed 13 March 2006.Google Scholar
7.National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final report of the national construction safety team on the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers. 2005, NIST NCSTAR 1, Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Deaths in World Trade Center Terrorist Attack–New York City, 2001. September 11, 2002/51(Special Issue);16–18. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm51Spa6.htm. Accessed 09 May 2006.Google Scholar
9.Dejoy, D: A behavioral-diagnostic model for self-protective behavior in the workplace. Prof Saf 1986;26–30.Google Scholar
10.Drabek, TE: Disaster as non-routine social problems. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1989:7;253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Proulx, G: A stress model for people facing a fire. J Enviro Psychol 1993:13;137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Quarantelli, E: Panic behavior in fire situations: Findings and a model from the English language literature. Publication 144, University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center.Google Scholar
13.Johnson, NR, Feinberg, WE: The Impact of exit instructions and number of exits in fire emergencies: A computer simulation investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997;17:123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Drabek, TE: Disaster-Induced Employee Evacuation. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado Press, 1999.Google Scholar
15.Drabek, TE: Variations in disaster evacuation behavior: Public responses versus private sector executive decision-making processes. Disasters 1992;16:104–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Paulson, RL: Human behavior and fires: An introduction. Fire Technol 1984;20(2):15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE): Engineering Guide to Human Behavior in Fire. Bethesda, MD: 2003:1–59.Google Scholar
18.Fahy, R, Proulx, G: Collective common sense: A study of human behavior during the World Trade Center evacuation. NFPA Journal 1995;9(2):59–67.Google Scholar
19.Proulx, G: Occupant behavior and evacuation.Proceedings of the 9th International Fire Protection Symposium (Munich, Germany, 5/25/2001) (NRCC-44983). 2001:1–13.Available at: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc44983. Accessed on 09 May 2006.Google Scholar
20.Keating, PJ: Human response during fire situations: A role for social engineering. Proceedings of Research and Design 1985;85:285–288.Google Scholar
21.Quenemoen, LE, Davis, YM, Malilay, J, Sinks, T, Noji, EK, Klitzman, S: The World Trade Center bombing: Injury prevention strategies for high-rise building fires. Disasters 1996;20:125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Fahy, RF, Proulx, G: Human Behavior in the World Trade Center Evacuation. International Association for Fire Safety Science. Fire Safety Science. Proceedings. Fifth (5th) International Symposium. 03–07 March 1997, Melbourne, Australia, Intl. Assoc. for Fire Safety Science, Boston, MA. Hasemi, Y, eds. 1997:713–724.Google Scholar
23.Drabek, TE: Disaster Evacuation Behavior: Tourists and Other Transients. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado Press, 1996.Google Scholar
24.Perry, RW: A Model of Evacuation Compliance Behavior. In: Dynes, RR, Tierney, KJ (eds), Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press, 1994, pp 85–98.Google Scholar
25.Aguirre, BE,Wenger, D, Vigo, G: A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. Sociological Forum 1998;13:301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Wenger, DE:Collective Behavior and Disaster Research. In: Dynes, RR, DeMarchi, B, Pelanda, C (eds), Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster Research. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli, 1987, pp 213–237.Google Scholar
27.Groner, NE: Intentional systems representations are useful alternatives to physical systems representations of fire-related human behavior. Safety Science 2001;38:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Johnson, NR, Feinberg, WE: The impact of exit instructions and number of exits in fire emergencies: A computer simulation investigation. J Enviro Psychol 1997;17:123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Drabek, TE: Disaster warning and evacuation responses by private business employees. Disasters 2001;25:76–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Fleishman, AR, Wood, EB: Research Involving Victims of Terror-Ethical Considerations. In: Moreno, JD, ed. In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: MIT Press, 2003:185–197.Google Scholar
31.Weathers, FW, Litz, BT, Huska, JA, Keane, TM: PCL-C for DSMIV. Boston, National Center for PTSD-Behavioral Sciences Division. 1994.Google Scholar
32.Norwood, S: Analyzing Qualitative Research Data. In: Research Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000:375–392.Google Scholar
33.Drabek, TE: Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
34.Gershon, RRM, Hogan, E, Qureshi, KA, Doll, L: Preliminary results from the World Trade Center Evacuation Study–New York City, 2004. MMWR 53(35):815–817.Google Scholar