Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:15:01.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Stampedes: An Updated Review of Current Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2018

Maria Moitinho de Almeida  and
Johan von Schreeb
Maria Moitinho de Almeida*
Affiliation:
Health Systems and Policy, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
Johan von Schreeb
Affiliation:
Health Systems and Policy, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Correspondence: Maria Moitinho de Almeida, MD, MPH 30 clos Chappelle-aux-Champs Bte 30.15.1 1200 Brussels, Belgium E-mail: maria.rodrigues@uclouvain.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human stampedes are a major cause of mortality in mass gatherings, but they have received limited scientific attention. While the number of publications has increased, there is no recent review of new study results. This study compiles and reviews available literature on stampedes, their prevention, preparedness, and response.

A search for peer-reviewed and grey literature in PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA), Google Scholar (Google Inc.; Mountain View, California USA), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA), the World Health Organization Library Database (WHOLIS; World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland), and ReliefWeb (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Geneva, Switzerland) was conducted, and papers were selected according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Included items were read and results were compiled and summarized. A total of 64 publications were included, of which, 34 were published between 2013-2016. The most studied events were Germany’s Love Parade stampede in 2010 (Duisburg, Germany; n = 6) and the United Kingdom (UK) Hillsborough Stadium stampede in 1989 (Sheffield, England; n = 4). Conflicting definitions of human stampedes were found. The common belief that they result from an irrational and panicking crowd has progressively been replaced by studies suggesting that successive systemic failures are main underlying causes. There is a lack of systematic reporting, making news reports often the only source available. Prevention measures are mainly related to crowd management and venue design, but their effectiveness has not been studied. Drills are recommended in the preparedness phase to improve coordination and communication. Delay in decisions, poor triage, or loss of medical records are common problems in the response, which may worsen the outcome.

Stampedes are complex phenomenon that remain incompletely understood, hampering formulation of evidence-based strategies for their prevention and management. Documentation comes mostly from high-profile events and findings are difficult to extrapolate to other settings. More research from different disciplines is warranted to address these gaps in order to prevent and mitigate future events. A start would be to decide on a common definition of stampedes.

Moitinho de AlmeidaM, von SchreebJ. Human Stampedes: An Updated Review of Current Literature. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(1):82–88.

Keywords

crowdingdisasterdisaster planning
Type
Comprehensive Review
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 82 - 88
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding: The authors report no conflict of interest. Maria Moitinho de Almeida received a scholarship through the European Union (Brussels, Belgium) funded Erasmus Mundus Master Program in Public Health in Disasters. Johan von Schreeb’s work was funded by a grant from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Stockholm, Sweden).

References

1. World Health Organization. Public Health for Mass Gatherings: Key Considerations. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2015.Google Scholar
2. Johansson, A, Batty, M, Hayashi, K, Al Bar, O, Marcozzi, D, Memish, ZA. Crowd and environmental management during mass gatherings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(2):150-156.Google Scholar
3. Ahmed, QA, Arabi, YM, Memish, ZA. Health risks at the Hajj. Lancet. 2006;367(9515):1008-1015.Google Scholar
4. Illiyas, F, Mani, S, Pradeepkumar, A, Mohan, K. Human stampedes during religious festivals: a comparative review of mass gathering emergencies in India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2013;5:10-18.Google Scholar
5. Steffen, R, Bouchama, A, Johansson, A, et al. Non-communicable health risks during mass gatherings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(2):142-149.Google Scholar
6. Soomaroo, L, Murray, V. Disasters at mass gatherings: lessons from history. PLoS Curr. 2012;4:RRN1301.Google Scholar
7. Still, GK. Crowd Safety and Risk Analysis. http://www.gkstill.com/ExpertWitness/CrowdDisasters.html. Accessed October 12, 2017.Google Scholar
8. Ngai, KM, Burkle, FM, Hsu, A, Hsu, EB. Human stampedes: a systematic review of historical and peer-reviewed sources. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3(4):191-195.10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181c5b494Google Scholar
9. Burkle, FM Jr., Hsu, EB. Ram Janki Temple: understanding human stampedes. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):106-107.Google Scholar
10. Hsieh, YH, Ngai, KM, Burkle, FM Jr., Hsu, EB. Epidemiological characteristics of human stampedes. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3(4):217-223.Google Scholar
11. Ngai, KM, Lee, WY, Madan, A, et al. Comparing two epidemiologic surveillance methods to assess underestimation of human stampedes in India. PLoS Curr. 2013;5.Google Scholar
12. Bhatia, MS, Srivastava, S, Jhanjee, A. Psychiatric morbidity in school children who suffered a stampede. Ind Psychiatry J. 2012;21(1):61-63.Google Scholar
13. Huang, Y, Xu, T, Sun, W. Public health lesson from Shanghai New Year’s Eve stampede. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(7):1021-1022.Google Scholar
14. Tam, JS, Barbeschi, M, Shapovalova, N, Briand, S, Memish, ZA, Kieny, MP. Research agenda for mass gatherings: a call to action. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(3):231-239.Google Scholar
15. Hsu, EB, Burkle, FM. Cambodian Bon Om Touk stampede highlights preventable tragedy. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(5):481-482.Google Scholar
16. Helbing, D, Mukerji, P. Crowd disasters as systemic failures: analysis of the Love Parade disaster. EPJ Data Science. 2012;1(1):7.Google Scholar
17. “Major Stampedes of India.” In: We Can Not Leave Everything to God: Children and Crowd Management in Schools. Southasiadisasters.net. 2014;(107):8.Google Scholar
18. Bolia, NB, editor. Risk Management Strategies to Avoid Stampede at Mass Gatherings . 2nd World Conference on Disaster Management: Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India; 2015.Google Scholar
19. Bowley, DM, Rein, P, Scholtz, HJ, Boffard, KD. The Ellis Park Stadium Tragedy. European Journal of Trauma. 2004;30(1):51-55.10.1007/s00068-004-1230-2Google Scholar
20. Colville-Ebeling, B, Freeman, M, Banner, J, Lynnerup, N. Autopsy practice in forensic pathology - evidence-based or experience-based? A review of autopsies performed on victims of traumatic asphyxia in a mass disaster. J Forensic Leg Med. 2014;22:33-36.10.1016/j.jflm.2013.11.006Google Scholar
21. Greenough, PG. The Kumbh Mela stampede: disaster preparedness must bridge jurisdictions. BMJ. 2013;346:f3254.Google Scholar
22. International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies. Information Bulletin 1. Iraq: Stampede; September 7, 2005.Google Scholar
23. International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies. Information Bulletin 2. Iraq: Stampede; September 7, 2005.Google Scholar
24. International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies. Information Bulletin 3. Iraq: Stampede; September 7, 2005.Google Scholar
25. Johnson, NR. Panic at “The Who Concert Stampede:” An Empirical Assessment. Social Problems. 1987;34(4):362-373.Google Scholar
26. Khanna, BK, Qwatara, A, Khanna, N. “Need for Stampede Management at School Level.” In: We Can Not Leave Everything to God: Children and Crowd Management in Schools. Southasiadisasters.net. 2014;(107):5-7.Google Scholar
27. Kolli, S. Multi-Agent Management of Crowds to Avoid Stampedes in Long Queues. Hyderabad, India: International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad; 2014.Google Scholar
28. Madzimbamuto, FD. A hospital response to a soccer stadium stampede in Zimbabwe. Emerg Med J. 2003;20(6):556-559.Google Scholar
29. Menglong, L, Hongjian, P, Xinkang, Z, Luoping, D. Research on risk assessment system of mass crowded stampede-trampling accidents in stadium. Appl Math. 2012;6(1S):9S-14S.Google Scholar
30. Prasun, A, Dixit, P, (editors). Stampede Management for Religious Events in India. Thailand: International Conference on Disaster Management in Civil Engineering; 2015.Google Scholar
31. Salamati, P, Rahimi-Movaghar, V. Hajj stampede in Mina, 2015: need for intervention. Arch Trauma Res. 2016;5(2):e36308.Google Scholar
32. Nicholson, CE, Roebuck, B. The investigation of the Hillsborough disaster by the Health and Safety Executive. Safety Science. 1995;18(4):249-259.Google Scholar
33. Sheikh, IA, Shaheen, FA, El-Aqeil, NA, Al-Khader, A, Karsuwa, S. Acute renal failure due to rhabdomyolysis following human stampede. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 1994;5(1):17-22.Google Scholar
34. Valesky, W, Silverberg, M, Gillett, B, et al. Assessment of hospital disaster preparedness for the 2010 FIFA World Cup using an internet-based, long-distance tabletop drill. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(3):192-195.Google Scholar
35. Zhou, J, Pei, H, Wu, H. Early Warning of Human Crowds Based on Query Data from Baidu Maps: Analysis Based on Shanghai Stampede. Big Data Support of Urban Planning and Management. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2018: 19-41.Google Scholar
36. Alqaysi, HH, Sasi, S, editors. Detection of abnormal behavior in dynamic crowded gatherings. Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR): Sensing for Control and Augmentation, 2013. Piscataway, New Jersey: IEEE; 2013.Google Scholar
37. Bhatt, MR. “We Can Not Leave Everything to God.” In: We Can Not Leave Everything to God: Children and Crowd Management in Schools. Southasiadisasters.net. 2014;(107):2-3.Google Scholar
38. Deshpande, N, Gupta, R. Crowd management using fuzzy logic and GIS. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies. 2010;43:325-334.Google Scholar
39. Garcia, L-M. Pathological Crowds: Affect and Danger in Responses to the Love Parade Disaster at Duisburg. Dancecult. 2011;2(1).10.12801/1947-5403.2011.02.01.15Google Scholar
40. Helbing, D, Johansson, A, Al-Abideen, HZ. The dynamics of crowd disasters: an empirical study. Phys Rev E, Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 2007.Google Scholar
41. Huang, L, Chen, T, Wang, Y, Yuan, H. Congestion detection of pedestrians using the velocity entropy: a case study of Love Parade 2010 disaster. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2015;440:200-209.Google Scholar
42. Jain, A. “Crowd Management at Heritage Sites.” In: We Can Not Leave Everything to God: Children and Crowd Management in Schools. Southasiadisasters.net. 2014;(107):10-11.Google Scholar
43. Johansson, A, Helbing, D, A-Abideen, HZ, Al-Bosta, S. From crowd dynamics to crowd safety: a video-based analysis. Adv Complex Syst. 2008;11.Google Scholar
44. Kalita, K. “Assam Jatiya Vidyalaya: A Case of Crowd Management at Schools.” In: We Can Not Leave Everything to God: Children and Crowd Management in Schools. Southasiadisasters.net. 2014;(107):4.Google Scholar
45. Krausz, B, Bauckhage, C. Love Parade 2010: automatic video analysis of a crowd disaster. Comput Vis Image Underst. 2012;116(3):307-319.Google Scholar
46. Lee, RSC, Hughes, RL. Prediction of human crowd pressures. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2006;38(4):712-722.Google Scholar
47. Lee, RSC, Hughes, RL. Minimization of the risk of trampling in a crowd. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM). 2007;74(1):29-37.Google Scholar
48. Ma, J, Song, WG, Lo, SM, Fang, ZM. New insights into turbulent pedestrian movement pattern in crowd-quakes. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. 2013;2013(02):P02028.Google Scholar
49. Moussaïd, M, Helbing, D, Theraulaz, G. How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108.Google Scholar
50. Ngo, MQ, Haghighi, PD, Burstein, F. A crowd monitoring framework using emotion analysis of social media for emergency management in mass gatherings. arXiv:160600751. 2016.Google Scholar
51. Pearl, TH. Crowd crush: how the law leaves American crowds unprotected. 104 Kentucky LJ. 2016.Google Scholar
52. Pearl, TH. Far from the Madding Crowd: A Statutory Solution to Crowd Crush. 68 Hastings LJ. 2016.Google Scholar
53. Phil, S. The legacy of Hillsborough: liberating truth, challenging power. Race & Class. 2013;55(2):1-27.Google Scholar
54. Pin, SC, Haron, F, Sarmady, S, Talib, AZ, Khader, AT. Applying TRIZ principles in crowd management. Safety Science. 2011;49(2):286-291.Google Scholar
55. Pretorius, M, Gwynne, S, Galea, ER. Large crowd modelling: an analysis of the Duisburg Love Parade disaster. Fire and Materials. 2015;39(4):301-322.Google Scholar
56. Ramesh, MV, Shanmughan, A, Prabha, R. Context aware ad hoc network for mitigation of crowd disasters. Ad Hoc Networks. 2014;18:55-70.Google Scholar
57. Shukla, PK, (editor). Genetically Optimized Architectural Designs for Control of Pedestrian Crowds. Australian Conference on Artificial Life. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
58. Wang, JY, Weng, WG, Zhang, XL. New insights into the crowd characteristics in Mina. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. 2014;2014(11):P11003.Google Scholar
59. Wieringa, SH. Planning Safe Pedestrian Mass Events: Proposing a Framework for Mitigating Risks of Crowd Disasters at Mass Events in the Public Urban Space. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2015.Google Scholar
60. Zhen, W, Mao, L, Yuan, Z. Analysis of trample disaster and a case study - Mihong Bridge Fatality in China in 2004. Safety Science. 2008;46(8):1255-1270.Google Scholar
61. United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. UN-Iraq Humanitarian Update. August 2005.Google Scholar
62. World Health Organization. WHO in Iraq: Weekly Bulletin. August 29 - September 4, 2005.Google Scholar
63. Cocking, C, Drury, J. Talking about Hillsborough: “panic” as discourse in survivors’ accounts of the 1989 football stadium disaster. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2014;24(2):86-99.Google Scholar
64. Kasthala, S, Lakra, HS, (editors). Disaster Preparedness for Mass Religious Gatherings in India-Learning from Case Studies . Second World Congress on Disaster Management; 2015.Google Scholar
65. Li, W, Gong, J, Yu, P, Shen, S. Modeling, simulation and analysis of group trampling risks during escalator transfers. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2016;444:970-984.Google Scholar
66. Nielsen, NH. Social control of the media: a comparative analysis of British media coverage of 1989 Hillsborough Disaster (1989 to 1990 and 2012 to 2013). Los Angeles, California USA: California State University, Northridge; 2015.Google Scholar
67. Helbing, D, Farkas, I, Vicsek, T. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature. 2000;407.Google Scholar
68. Dias, C, Sarvi, M, Shiwakoti, N, Ejtemai, O, Burd, M. Investigating collective escape behaviors in complex situations. Safety Science. 2013;60:87-94.Google Scholar
69. Drury, J, Novelli, D, Stott, C. Managing to avert disaster: explaining collective resilience at an outdoor music event. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2015;45(4):533-547.Google Scholar
70. Ibrahim, A, Venkat, I, Subramanian, KG, Khader, AT, De Wilde, P. Intelligent evacuation management systems: a review. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol. 2016;7(3):1-27.Google Scholar
71. Soomaroo, L. UNISDR Scientific and Technical Advisory Group Case Studies–2014: recognizing and understanding collective resilience in crowds of survivors, London, UK. www.preventionweb.net/files/workspace/7935_collectiveresilienceincrowdsofsurvi.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2018.Google Scholar
72. Conn, D. Hillsborough inquests jury rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed. The Guardian. 2016;26.Google Scholar