This scoping review delves into the behavioural aspects of using evacuation lifts and refuge areas during building evacuations, with a particular focus on the challenges faced by people with physical impairments. The review identifies key strategies such as Areas of Refuge (AoRs) and Occupant Evacuation Elevators (OEEs), and examines the current research on occupant behaviour associated with these strategies. It highlights the need for more non-hypothetical experiments and field studies to better understand real-world behaviour and improve evacuation planning. The review also discusses various aiding systems designed to enhance the effectiveness of these evacuation strategies, emphasizing the importance of considering user perspectives in future research. The findings underscore the necessity for further research to ensure that evacuation strategies meet the needs of all occupants, particularly those with physical impairments, and to validate the effectiveness of proposed solutions in real-world scenarios.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
As more buildings around the world are becoming accessible, the question of egressibility, i.e., accessible evacuation, is important to assess. To achieve egressibility for people who are unable to use the stairs, areas of refuge or occupant evacuation elevators are the two dominant evacuation strategies identified in previous research. A key challenge with these strategies is that they require certain behaviours from the evacuees to be successful. Thus, the aim of this scoping review is to summarise and analyse the research performed within the area, with a focus on the behavioural aspects, in order to identify gaps in the knowledge and provide a foundation for further research. Over 5,000 papers were screened, and a total of 34 papers were selected for in-depth analysis. The review concludes that behavioural aspects related to areas of refuge have not been given much research attention, and the few studies published are based on evaluation of hypothetical scenarios. Evacuation elevators have received more research attention, but the majority of the studies published involve hypothetical scenarios. Hypothetical scenario experiments, sometimes called behavioural intent experiments, can be argued to have low validity. Thus, this review highlights the need for further research on behavioural aspects and design of systems that support the use of both evacuation elevators and areas of refuge. It also highlights that where the preferred methodologies of field or case studies are not readily available to fill the knowledge gap, the use of laboratory and VR methodologies, particularly where they gather perspectives from intended end users, have significant potential to progress understanding on how the use of areas of refuge and occupant evacuation elevators can contribute to egressibility.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction
A growing population and increasing urbanisation around the world has been identified as one of the grand challenges of fire safety by the International Association of Fire Safety Science (IAFSS) [1]. Not only is the population growing, but people are living longer than ever before. An ageing population means an increasing proportion of people living with some form of disability. According to the World Health Organization, 16% of the world population has some sort of disability, and this proportion is expected to grow as the average life expectancy increases [2].
To address population changes, i.e., an increasing proportion of people with disabilities, there has been a growing movement in many countries to increase accessibility of buildings. Some regulatory examples are (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [3], (2) the Swedish planning and building act [4] and (3) Accessible Canada Act [5]. Furthermore, both European and international standardisation documents give guidance on building accessibility [6, 7]. However, with increased accessibility, the issue of accessible means of egress, sometimes also labelled as “egressibility” [8], becomes increasingly important. Egressibility is a term with no unified definition, but in this paper we define it as accessibility to means of evacuation [9]. The concept of egressibility has received more attention in recent years and with more research being done in the area [9, 10]. Much of this research highlight obstacles for evacuation of people with various physical impairments.
Advertisement
The difficulty, or inability, to use stairs for evacuation often imposes a major obstacle for people with physical impairments, e.g., a person using a wheelchair, a walker or crutches, which has been clearly demonstrated by the World Trade Center evacuations that occurred in 1993 and 2001. Both evacuations have been investigated by Dr Rita Fahy (and colleagues) using different sources of witness accounts. The 1993 evacuation, which was in response to a bomb detonating in a sub-terranean garage, was explored by Fahy using questionnaire replies from more than 400 evacuees [11]. One of the evacuation strategies introduced after the 1993 bombing was evacuation chairs for all mobility impaired occupants [12], which suggest that disability was identified as a major evacuation challenge. In their exploration of the 2001 evacuation, Fahy and Proulx [13] identified several evacuees who were wheelchair users or had a physical challenge. Many of these evacuees required assistance to evacuate the building, which is illustrated by the statement of one wheelchair user who said “If it weren’t for the evacuation chair and the 10 people that brought me down, I would not have made it…” [13].
As illustrated by Fahy’s research related to the World Trade Center evacuations, specific evacuation strategies need to be introduced for people with physical impairments because the regular evacuation stairs pose significant challenges. Evacuation with different movement devices, such as evacuation chairs are a possibility, and can in some instances be efficient. However, these strategies rely on assistance from others [14]. To receive such assistance, people who are unable to walk stairs may need to wait, preferably in a safe space. Ideally, an evacuation strategy would rely on unassisted evacuation, alas, this is not always possible to achieve.
Different evacuation strategies for people with physical impairments have been discussed since Fahy’s early work in 1993, but the same strategies are proposed in recent work [10] as in work published 25 years ago [15]. These strategies are Areas of Refuge (AoR) or the use of lifts for evacuation (also referred to as Occupant Evacuation Elevators, OEE). As mentioned, the evacuation from AoRs require further assistance, but the AoR can serve as a shelter until such assistance can be provided.
Successful evacuation, both for AoRs and OEEs, requires that the evacuee acts in a specific way, i.e., waits for further assistance or uses an elevator (and quite possibly wait for it to arrive). These behaviours may contradict the initial desired behaviours of the evacuees, and thus, a key challenge with both AoRs and OEEs is to promote the behaviours intended by the users. To meet this challenge, a detailed understanding of people's current behaviour using AoRs and OEEs is required. In early research on AoRs, human behaviour aspects were raised as the key concern [16]. In more recent work, the same issues appear to be just as relevant [17, 18]. Similarly, the behavioural aspects of lift evacuation have been discussed for several years [19], but recent work in the area still highlights that more research is needed [20]. Thus, a systematic overview of the research performed on human behaviour aspects associated with these two evacuation strategies is necessary to provide a solid foundation for further studies.
Advertisement
The objective of this study is to identify, summarise and analyse the current research on the use of lifts for evacuation (both “regular” lifts and OEEs) and AoRs, with particular focus on the behavioural aspects. The end goal is to identify knowledge gaps, thereby providing the foundation for further research.
2 Method
For this review, the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) with the extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) has been applied [21]. A protocol was developed based on the guidelines given for scoping reviews in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [22]. The purpose was to follow the standardised procedures for scoping reviews, to ensure repeatability and transparency of the process and results.
To ensure a broad coverage of relevant research literature, a search string was developed and used to search three different scientific databases; Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The rationale for choosing these databases was that these are among the largest scientific databases, where Scopus and Web of Science are multidisciplinary and include the material from the major journals within the field of fire safety as well as major journals within other relevant fields, e.g., biomechanics, human behaviour and psychology. Pubmed has a focus on biomedical and life sciences, which includes coverage of relating fields, e.g., psychology, behavioural sciences and ergonomics.
The search string was developed to identify studies on behavioural aspects associated with AoRs and/or lifts used for evacuation. Thus, the search string was separated into three different elements, i.e., (1) activity, e.g., “evacuation”, (2) evacuation strategy, e.g., “lift”, and (3) behavioural aspect, e.g., “behaviour”. Different synonyms and other relevant terms for each part of the search string were identified through consultation with experts within the research field and by reviewing known publications on the intended subject. Furthermore, the final search string was tested on a number of known relevant publications, to make sure that these, and similar studies, would be covered. When these pilot searches were performed, a number of exclusions were identified to disregard irrelevant literature in the search process. Thus, an additional element, (4), was identified as obvious exclusions from the search. The exclusions were only applied to the title and keywords, to avoid exclusion due to wording in the abstract. To ensure that different variations of key terms was included, an asterisk (*) was added to the terms where it was deemed relevant.
The different terms for each element of the search string are given in Table 1.
Table 1
Terms for each element of the search string
Search element
Search terms
(1) Activity
“evacuation*” OR “egress” OR “escape” OR “emergency” OR “rescue” OR “fire-safe”
(2) Evacuation strategy
“lift*” OR “elevator*” OR “safe area*” OR “refuge*” OR “shelter*”
(3) Behavioural aspect
“behaviour*” OR “behavior*” OR “perspective*” OR “decision-making” OR “attitude*” OR “perception” OR “perceived” OR “exit choice” OR “guidance”
(4) Obvious exclusions
(only title/keyword)
“pandemic” OR “covid” OR “tsunami*” OR “hurricane*” OR “earthquake*” OR “tornado*” OR “tumor*”
Within the different elements, an "OR" term was employed, while between the elements, an "AND" term was used (or “NOT” for the fourth element).
The inclusion and exclusion criteria developed are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Inclusion and exclusion criterions
Domain
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Population
All populations were included in the study
No exclusion was made based on population in the study
Setting
Articles focusing on evacuation from buildings or other structures with similar vertical layout, e.g., underground stations
Articles not focusing on evacuation of buildings or similar structures, e.g., mines or tunnels
Means of evacuation
Articles focusing on lifts used for evacuation, OEEs and/or AoRs
Articles focusing on other means of evacuation, e.g., stairs or stair descent devices
Behavioural aspects
Articles focusing on behaviour, attitude, feelings or perspectives of the occupants
Articles not focusing on behaviour, attitude, feelings or perspective of the occupants, e.g., calculation studies or studies without reflections on occupant behaviour
Original research
Original research articles were included
Articles not containing original research were excluded, e.g., reviews, editorials and/or opinion pieces
Study characteristics
Articles published from 2000 to the cutoff date, written in English and available in full text were included
Articles published before year 2000, not written in English and/or not available in full text were excluded
The search was limited to include publications from 2000 until the last search date, which was 31/1—2024. This time span was selected as the technology associated with both OEEs and AoRs are quite novel and can be considered a relatively recent development, potentially impacting people's behaviour. Notably, there has been significant developments in communication systems in the past decade including mobile communication devices and displays that have made novel design solutions possible. These novel solutions could not have been possible or affordable before 2000. Beginning the search period in the year 2000 also ensures that the findings of the studies relating to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 are included. This is important given the lessons learned from this globally significant event. Thus, 2000 was selected as the cutoff year.
Furthermore, “grey literature”, i.e., publications produced outside traditional publishing frequencies, such as government policies, newsletters, and non-scientific articles, as well as publications that are not written in English were disregarded from the review.
After the search had been performed, all references were imported into Covidence,1 which is a web-based tool for systematic reviews. The tool automatically removed most duplicate references before the screening was performed. The remaining duplicates were removed manually. After the duplicates were removed, an initial screening was performed based on titles and abstracts. The references that did not meet the inclusion criteria in Table 2 were removed and the remaining references were moved to the next stage in the process, i.e., full text screening. All references were screened by two researchers. Furthermore, the conflicts were discussed in each stage, and consensus was reached on all references.
To analyse the papers, a review template was developed with the purpose to extract key data in a systematic and standardised manner. The review template was refined and updated throughout the review process and all reviewed papers were reassessed each time it was updated. The data categories included in the review are listed in the results section. Some examples of included categories are bibliographic data, e.g., publication type and year, study type, e.g., experimental, case study or descriptive research, experimental method (if applicable), means of evacuation studied, e.g., OEEs and/or AoRs, and more.
To get more insight into the connection between different sources of information and to identify further resources of interest, 26 of the 34 publications included in the review were imported in a web-based tool called Researchrabbit.2 This tool is a citation-based literature mapping tool, that can be used to study connections between publications and help identify further sources of relevance. The book chapters and the conference papers were not possible to import into the tool but from the journal papers, the top 50 suggested references were examined for relevance. However, none of these references were deemed relevant to include in the review.
3 Results
The results from the review are presented in the sections below.
3.1 Selection of Included Publications
A total of 5,614 publications were included in the review before screening. Of these, 2,911 were retrieved from Scopus, 1,830 were retrieved from Web of Science, 565 were retrieved from PubMed and 308 publications were retrieved from the Human Behaviour in Fire conferences. The distribution of publications from different databases is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Distribution of resources retrieved from different sources
Of the publications included, 1,388 were identified as duplicates and were therefore removed. The rest of the 4,226 publications were screened at the level of title and abstract, a process which excluded out 4,131 publications. The remaining 95 publications were reviewed in full text and consecutively, 61 publications were excluded. The process, including the reasons for exclusion at the full text level, are shown in the PRISMA flow diagram presented in Fig. 2. Note that one publication could be removed due to several exclusion criterions. After the full text review, 34 publications were included in the final review. The number of conflicts, i.e., when the decision was different between the researchers, were below 2% of the total number of included publications in the first stage and around 5% in the second stage. This indicates coherence between the researchers on the interpretation of the inclusion/exclusion criteria used.
Fig. 2
PRISMA flow diagram visualising the screening process. Note that one publication could be removed due to several exclusion criterions, which explains why the sum of the screened studies in the full text section is greater than the number of studies excluded. The reference scanning refers to the resources identified through ResearchRabbit
The number of publications focusing on behavioral aspects related to OEEs and AoRs have increased during later years, with five publications from 2000 to 2010 and 29 publications from 2011 to 2024, see Fig. 3. The spikes of publications in 2012 and 2015 are partly related to the International Human Behaviour in Fire Symposia being held these years.
Most of the 34 publications included in the review are published in scientific journals (n = 23), with the majority being published in fire related journals, i.e., eight papers in Fire Safety Journal and four paper each in Fire and Materials Journal and Fire Safety Journal, see Fig. 4. Furthermore, ten of the included publications are conference papers, of which seven were published in the Proceedings of the International Human Behaviour in Fire Symposia. Lastly, one book chapter was included in the review.
Fig. 4
Sources of the different publications included in the review
The different publications included in the review categorized by the country of affiliation of the corresponding author can be found in Fig. 5. The results show that, based on the country of affiliation of the first author, most of the research has been done in Sweden (n = 8), followed by China (n = 7) and then the UK and the USA (both with n = 4).
Fig. 5
Publications per country of affiliation of the corresponding author
As the results show, the home institution of the first author of the included publications is located in a variety of different continents, i.e., Europe, Asia, North America and Oceania.
3.3 Types of Studies
Several different types of studies were identified in the review of the publications. Most publications (n = 26) describe different types of experimental studies, followed by publications describing case studies (n = 6), as well as descriptive publications (n = 2). In this data, case studies are defined as studies where a “real” evacuation event have been studied retrospectively, i.e., the World Trade Center evacuations [23‐26], The Chicago Cook County Administrative Building [27] and the Hiroshima Motomachi Apartment building [28]. Descriptive publications are defined as those where different decision frameworks are discussed theoretically, but without any direct support in experimental or “real” evacuation data [29, 30].
Of the experimental studies, the majority (n = 15) are hypothetical scenario studies, i.e., questionnaire or interview studies where participants are asked to imagine an evacuation scenario and describe attitudes, exit choice, waiting times and/or similar [31‐45]. Ten studies are performed in a laboratory environment, which includes informed evacuation studies [46‐52], of which, three are VR studies [53‐55]. These are essentially the same category of research studies but are separated from the rest in Fig. 6. to illustrate the number of VR studies. Notably, only one of the included publications describs a study that was performed as a field experiment [56]. The categorization of studies is based on the definitions discussed in [20].
As discussed above, the majority of studies are performed as hypothetical scenario studies. This is even more evident when assessing the number of participants included in each study. For the hypothetical scenario studies, there are a total of 5,090 participants in OEE only studies, 167 participants in studies on both OEEs and AoRs and 113 participants in AoR only studies. In the laboratory studies (excluding VR), there are 294 participants in studies on OEEs only and 36 participants in studies on AoRs only. In the VR studies, there are 268 participants in studies on OEEs only. In the case studies, there are 998 evacuees included in studies focusing only on lift evacuation and 551 evacuees included in studies on both lift evacuation and AoRs. These numbers are presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7
Number of total participants in the different study types for the different means of evacuation
The vast majority (n = 27) of the publications have a focus on high-rise buildings [23‐28, 31‐33, 36‐42, 45‐53, 55, 56]. However, a smaller number of publications focus on hospitals (n = 1) [35], underground metro stations (n = 2) [30, 54], train stations (n = 1) [34] or a workshop venue and shopping mall [43]. The focus of the publications is displayed in Fig. 8., where N/A (n = 2) means no specific focus was discussed in the publication [29, 44].
Most publications (n = 22) focus only on evacuation lifts/OEEs [23, 30‐37, 39, 41, 42, 47‐56] or on lift evacuation (not OEE) (n = 4) [24‐26, 28], meaning that the lifts were not designated OEEs. The latter consists of cases where the lifts were used for evacuation even though they were not intended to be a part of the evacuation strategy of the building. AoRs are not studied to the same extent and three studies focus solely on such areas [44‐46]. In four publications, OEEs and AoRs are studied [29, 38, 40, 43] and in one case study, lifts (that were not OEEs) and AoRs are assessed [27]. The distribution of studies is shown in Fig. 9.
The population in the studies included in the review varies as shown in Fig. 10. Notably, there are only a few (n = 4) studies that focus on people with physical impairments [40, 43‐45]. These studies focus on AoRs or both OEEs and AoRs. Furthermore, among the OEE studies, most (n = 8) have no specific mention or criteria for the population included [31, 32, 36, 37, 42, 50, 53, 56]. Furthermore, a significant amount of the studies (n = 7) were performed with student populations [47‐49, 51, 52, 54, 55].
Different aspects of human behaviour are explored in the publications. Most publications (n = 26) on both OEEs, lift evacuation (not OEEs) and AoRs explore exit choice in some way, i.e., if the participants are willing to, or have used, the lifts or AoRs for evacuation. The attitude, i.e., the participants thoughts and feelings on the use of OEEs, lift evacuation (not OEEs) or AoRs, are discussed in 18 publications. Accepted waiting time for lift evacuation and when waiting in an AoR is studied in ten studies for OEEs and four studies for AoRs. Social influence, i.e., how other evacuees affect the decision-making, is studied in four studies, only focusing on lift evacuation. Similarly, queuing for a lift during evacuation is discussed in six studies. These results are illustrated in Fig. 11.
Fig. 11
Behavioural aspects studied for the different means of evacuation
Within the studies that investigated attitudes related to lift evacuation, most identified factors related to the delay in getting to use the lift for evacuation, such as actual (or perceived) waiting time (n = 8) [36‐38, 40‐42, 55, 56], the lift being used by people who do not need it (n = 1) [38] and the priority of floors for evacuation (n = 1) [38]. Other major concerns stated in the studies are getting stuck in the lift (n = 6) [36, 40‐42, 55, 56], congestion/queuing (n = 5) [36‐38, 40, 51] or faults with the lift or its protective systems, such as fire and smoke in lift (n = 4) [36, 40, 41, 56], power failure (n = 4) [31, 36, 38, 40] or machine failure (n = 2) [31, 36]. The results are presented in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12
Concerns raised with lift evacuation in the studies
As presented above, the studies investigating AoRs are scarce. Thus, the number of studies where different concerns are raised are also fewer. The major concerns raised in relation to AoRs are not getting enough information (n = 2) [40, 44], not being safe in the refuge area (n = 2) [40, 45], not being able to communicate within the area (n = 2) [40, 45], being alone (n = 2) [40, 45], being forgotten (n = 2) [40, 45] and not knowing when assistance will come (n = 2) [44, 45]. The results are presented in Fig. 13.
As the results show, lack of information and different aspects of waiting time are major concerns for both AoRs and OEEs. Furthermore, the fear of being stuck in an elevator, or forgotten in an AoR is also highly prevalent in the studies.
3.6 Aiding Systems
In the studies, different technical (and non-technical) solutions are discussed to increase usage/acceptance or to solve the concerns raised above. For lift evacuation, the most common systems discussed or studied are signage/information (n = 14) [23, 30, 32, 34‐37, 40, 42, 49, 53‐56], training (n = 7) [27, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40, 43] and an informative voice alarm with guidance on how to act (n = 6) [30, 42, 53‐56]. The results are presented in Fig. 14., which shows the types of systems investigated in each type of study. An observation is that some of the systems are only discussed in hypothetical scenarios or descriptive studies and have not been tested in laboratory, VR or field experiments.
Fig. 14
Aiding systems discussed for lift evacuation in different studies
The single laboratory study on AoRs was limited to the study of information signage and guidance related to “stay put” strategies only [46]. All other studies on AoRs were performed as hypothetical scenario studies. Due to the limited data the results for AoRs are not presented in a separate figure. The most common systems discussed/studied for AoRs are two-way communication systems (n = 5) and signage/information (n = 5). The results from all studies on AoRs are shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 15
Aiding systems discussed for AoRs in different studies
The review shows that the number of research studies focusing on lift evacuation and the use of AoRs has increased in recent years. Studies are being performed in several different countries around the world. This increased attention for egressability could be explained by an increased academic, and societal, interest in both accessibility and evacuation in special situations.
Most of the identified publications focused on lift evacuation and there are only a handful of studies focusing on AoRs. A reason for this is that in most of the studied cases, OEEs are not studied as a tool for accessible evacuation. Instead OEEs are researched as a tool to increase evacuation efficiency or aid evacuation in general. Research that focused only on OEEs for people who have challenges walking the stairs was rare. However, the benefits of OEEs in such scenarios were mentioned in several of the studies.
For OEEs, more than half of the experimental publications included in the review described hypothetical scenario studies. The second largest category are laboratory experiments with participants informed about the evacuation experiment. Only one field experiment was identified, and only three VR studies. Of the VR studies, two are replicas of the field experiment and focus on validation of VR experiments and thus limited in regard to presenting new knowledge beyond the setting of the field experiment.
For OEEs, some design aspects have been tested experimentally in laboratory settings, but the only aiding systems tested in the field are informative voice alarms and different signs. In laboratory/VR experiments, systems such as smart phone guidance and countdown timers have been tested. However, two-way communication, lift positioning systems and lift overload systems have only been theoretically discussed or mentioned in hypothetical scenarios.
For the small number of publications focussed on AoRs, essentially all involve hypothetical scenario studies. There is only one laboratory study on dynamic signage for stay-put strategies but other aspects such as the attitudes of end-users of AoRs and their decision-making process, and the physical design of the area itself are not investigated. None of the systems were indicated to have been tested in a laboratory, VR or field experimental setting. Thus, the results relating to concerns and attitudes of evacuees, and the functionality of aiding systems, are based solely on behavioural intention for hypothetical scenarios.
In general, there is a lack of non-hypothetical design studies for AoRs. The same can be said for several of the aiding systems proposed for OEEs. For both OEEs and AoRs, more non-hypothetical experiments are needed. Preferably, more field studies would be beneficial, as these could serve as a basis both for design situations and for validation purposes. This could increase the possibility of using laboratory settings or VR as tools for future research.
The literature included in this study clearly demonstrate the range of factors that impact people's decision-making when considering the use of OEEs and AoRs, primarily indicating the concerns that users have. It is important that those factors are considered in the design and training for these evacuation strategies, to ensure that users interact with OEEs and AoRs as intended. However, there has not been a systematic analysis of the most influential factors, nor the methods that could be used to overcome these concerns of evacuees.
A limitation in the research studied is a lack of data from real evacuation situations and/or field studies, as mentioned above. A greater focus on real-world behaviour in future studies would help fill this gap.
5 Conclusions
This systematic scoping review presents an overview of behavioural studies on lift evacuation (both OEEs and other lifts used for evacuation) and/or AoRs. The review identified over 5,000 publications published since the year 2000. After screening, 34 publications were included for further analysis.
In general, it can be concluded that behavioural aspects of AoRs have not been given much research attention over the years. Of the handful of studies identified, almost all are hypothetical scenario studies, and there is no laboratory, VR or field experiment, apart from one study focusing on signage for stay-put strategies. For OEEs, there are more publications, but the majority of the studies are still hypothetical scenario studies. This is a drawback within the research base, as hypothetical scenario studies are often associated with lower validity compared to many other research methodologies.
This review highlights the need for further research on behavioural aspects and design of aiding systems for both OEEs and AoRs. As both AoRs and OEEs are solutions incorporated in buildings around the world, more research attention needs to be given to both how to design such means of evacuation to meet the needs of the end users, and how to ensure that the designs achieve the intended level of usage that will enable the incorporation of OEEs and AoRs into fire engineering assessments, with reasonable accuracy.
The largest gap in the current knowledge is the lack of data from field experiments and real-world incidents that would improve our understanding and provide the basis for validation of other research methods. However, resourcing of field experiments can be challenging, and the lack of frequent events involving OEE’s and AoRs that could warrant a case study makes filling this gap worthy yet slow to progress.
The research reviewed suggests that both laboratory and VR studies can approximate some elements of a true field study and therefore should be capitalized on by researchers to maintain momentum in developing more knowledge on design aspects relevant for both OEEs and AoRs. Furthermore, laboratory and VR studies on the use of OEEs and AoRs could be made more impactful by incorporating the perspectives of the intended end users, i.e. people living with temporary or permanent physical impairments.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Peter Thompson and Dr. Anne Templeton for their valuable contributions to this research.
Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
A paper presenting two case studies and how affordance analysis can aid the design of the evacuation guidance systems in these studies. Highlights research needs and gives a proposed research strategy
Interviews with 9/11 survivors studying pre-evacuation behaviour. Elevators was used by 15% in WTC 2 (unavailable in WTC1). Motivation was "fastest route", "social influence" and building floor (higher usage on higher floors)
Analysis of first person accounts of WTC survivors. Elevator use was used by 28% of the participants in WTC 2 and 2% of the participants from WTC 1. The higher up in WTC 2 the persons were, the more likely were they to use the elevator
Questionnaire study of evacuation knowledge and behaviour during a fire in a high-rise building. Only 0.5% believed elevators were part of the evacuation strategy, but approximately 50% of the respondents who were in the fire evacuation used an elevator for escape. Disabled occupants were supposed to wait in the stairs but took the elevator or were assisted
Questionnaire study with people living in an apartment building that suffered a fire incident which led to evacuation. 54% of the participants used elevators during some part of their evacuation. The elevator use increased with increasing building floor. The study concludes that elevator evacuation may speed up evacuation
A management model for occupant movement in buildings is discussed. Focus is on safe movement and managing of occupants. OEEs and AoRs are mentioned as possible parts of the strategy. Behaviour is discussed in relation to situational awareness
Questionnaire with hypothetical scenario looking at exit choice and waiting time. Correlation on elevator usage derived. Discussing as signage not enough to encourage elevator use, training probably needed
Questionnaire with hypothetical scenario looking at exit choice and waiting time. Correlation on elevator usage derived. Comparing different populations (student/working engineers) and with actual bomb threat evacuation
Questionnaire with hypothetical scenario looking at evacuation behaviour in a train station. People are likely to act “reactively” and to cooperate and follow crowds. ~ 7% were likely to use elevators
Questionnaire with hypothetical scenario looking at evacuation behaviour in a hospital. People are likely to act “reactively” and to cooperate and follow crowds. ~ 11% were likely or very likely to use elevators
Questionnaire and interview study of evacuation behaviour in a hypothetical setting. 7.7% would probably use the lift with an increasing trend on higher floors. A trend that older occupants are more willing to use the lift as well. Both questionnaire surveys and interviews investigated percieved risks with elevators/stairs
Questionnaire study of exit choice with different parameters studied. The willingness to use lift increases with higher building floor and also depending on other factors such as dynamic signage and direction by staff
51 disabled participants asked about their experience of evacuation and perspectives on AoRs, OEEs and stair travel devices. Participants anxious about waiting in AoRs. Participants who had used lifts in evacuation situations saw many benefits of doing so
Questionnaire study with 244 residential occupants and 228 commercial building occupants about awareness of fire safety in high-rise buildings. 80% of commercial and 73% of residential occupants thought that elevators are never safe to use in an emergency. Only a few percent thought that elevators are "as safe as stairs" or "usually safe"
Questionnaire and interview study involving people with physical impairment. Approx. 50% did not know what refuge area was. 66% were willing to use AoR. 60% were not willing to wait > 10 min. Publication argues that it is probable that people will try to leave the area of refuge. 81% had little or no awareness of evacuation lift
Study in a residential complex using a questionnaire and including a modelling study. The questionnaire included questions on willingness to use stairs/lifts, waiting times and attitude towards elevator evacuation. Questionnaire data was fed into the evacuation modelling of the building. Only 8% thought the elevator could be used in an emergency, but still 42% would consider it in an emergency. 58% would consider it above the 15th floor but 92% would only wait 5 or less minutes
Information about what is happening in the building
Two-way communication
Information that the lobby is safe
Information on safety of elevator
Spoken voice alarm
Information about waiting time
Information about how long it will take to walk down
High-rise building
Hypothetical scenario study performed in residential, office and hotel buildings. Measured willingness to use elevator, feeling of safety, waiting time and the perceived effect of different system/pieces of information. Found people were more willing to use elevators higher up in the building, but accepted waiting time is short
Interview/workshop study on different evacuation barriers/possibilities for people with physical impairments. OEEs have both positive and negative factors associated with them, while AoRs only have positive. Communications in AoR are mentioned as a key system
Questionnaire study with end-users of refuge areas. 55% of the participants had heard of the concept. 50–60% answered that they would be willing to use an AoR in an emergency. 75% of the participants were willing to wait more than 10 min
Questionnaire study with physically impaired participants. 17% had heard about AoRs. 33% would rather try to get down using the stairs than to use an AoR. 91% were willing to wait less than 10 min if they didn't receive information but if they got information, 52% would be willing to wait more than 10 min (26% as long as needed). The study also asked people who may have to assist persons in AoRs on their perspective
Repeated evacuation experiment to try difference of dynamic and static signage. One of the escape routes was an AoR but no behaviour related to this area was studied/discussed
Experimental paper where elevator use and waiting time was studied. Repeated trials with informed participants. 24–40% of the participants used elevator depending on scenario
Experimental study with 30 students evacuating from the 11th floor of a building. In some scenarios, elevator and stairs could be chosen. Shorter evacuation times are recorded when both are used, but in one case the elevator got overloaded, leading to longer evacuation times
Evacuation experiment with repeated trials with the same group of participants. Social influence and leader/follower behaviour of a student group was studied. Elevator results not discussed in-depth
VR Experiments mimicking previous VR experiments using CAVE and physical experiments. Shows that for most decisions related to elevator evacuation, the VR experiments with an HMD have quite good agreement with experiments in the physical world
Experimental paper on exit choice (elevators vs stairs) in a high-rise hotel building. VR with CAVE technique was used. Flashing lights studied, which were aimed at promoting elevator use, which was successful in the experiment
Unannounced evacuation experiment performed on the 16th floor of a hotel building. Almost everyone evacuated using the elevator. The tendency to follow signage was also studied and it was concluded that people do not follow signage very often
McNamee M, Meacham B, van Hees P, Bisby L, Chow WK, Coppalle A, Dobashi R, Dlugogorski B, Fahy R, Fleischmann C, Floyd J, Galea ER, Gollner M, Hakkarainen T, Hamins A, Hu L, Johnson P, Karlsson B, Merci B, Ohmiya Y, Rein G, Trouvé A, Wang Y, Weckman B (2019) IAFSS agenda 2030 for a fire safe world. Fire Saf J 110:102889CrossRef
2.
World Health Organisation 2023 Disability
3.
U.S Department of Justice 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended ADA.gov
4.
the Swedish Code of Statutes 2010 Swedish Planning and Building Act (SFS 2010:900) (Stockholm)
5.
Government of Canada 2019 Accessible Canada Act Justice Laws Website
6.
CEN 2021 EN 17210:2021 - Accessibility and usability of the built environment - Functional requirements (The European Committee for Standardization)
7.
ISO (2021) ISO 21542 - Building construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
8.
Proulx G (1995) Evacuation time and movement in apartment buildings. Fire Saf J 24:229–246CrossRef
9.
Smedberg E 2022 Egressibility: Applying the concept of accessibility to the self-evacuation of people with functional limitations Licentiate Thesis (Lund University)
10.
Al Bochi A, Roberts BWR, Sajid W, Ghulam Z, Weiler M, Sharma Y, Marquez-Chin C, Pong S, Vette AH, Dutta T (2023) Evacuation solutions for individuals with functional limitations in the indoor built environment: a scoping review. Buildings 13:2779CrossRef
11.
Fahy R F 1995 Study of Occupant Behavior During the World Trade Center Evacuation: Preliminary Report of Results International Conference on Fire Research and Engineering (R F. Fahy)
12.
Fahy RF (2011) How did people respond and evacuate in WTC Twin Towers in 2001? J Disaster Res 6:620–628CrossRef
13.
Proulx G and Fahy R F 2004 Account analysis of WTC survivors The 3rd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire (Belfast)
14.
Adams APM, Galea ER (2011) An experimental evaluation of movement devices used to assist people with reduced mobility in high-rise building evacuations. In: Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED, Averill JD (eds) Pedestrian and evacuation Dynamics. Springer, Boston, pp 129–38CrossRef
15.
Proulx G, Pineau J (1996) Review of evacuation strategies for occupants with disabilities. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa
16.
Levin BM, Groner NE (1992) Human behavior aspects of staging areas for fire safety in GSA buildings. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fairfax
17.
Boyce KE (2017) Safe evacuation for all - Fact or Fantasy? Past experiences, current understanding and future challenges. Fire Saf. J. 91:28–40CrossRef
18.
Hostetter H, Naser MZ (2022) Characterizing disability in fire evacuation: a progressive review. J Build Eng 53:104573CrossRef
19.
Levin BM, Groner NE (1994) Human factor considerations in the potential for using elevators for fire evacuation of FAA control towers. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg
20.
Mossberg A 2022 Elevator evacuation: Exploring behavioural aspects Doctoral thesis (Lund: Division of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University)
21.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169:467–473CrossRef
22.
Aromataris E and Munn Z 2020 JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (JBI)
Kuligowski Erica (2013) Model building: an examination of the pre-evacuation period of the 2001 World Trade Center disaster. Fire Mater. 39:285–300CrossRef
25.
Blake S, Galea E, Westang H, Dixon A (2004) An analysis of human behaviour during the WTC disaster of 9/11 based on published survivor accounts 3rd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Interscience Communications Ltd, Belfast
26.
Proulx G, Fahy R (2004) Account analysis of WTC survivors 3rd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Interscience Communications Ltd, Belfast
27.
Proulx G, Reid IMA (2006) Occupant behavior and evacuation during the Chicago Cook County Administration Building Fire. J Fire Prot Eng 16:283–309CrossRef
28.
Sekizawa A, Nakahama S, Ebihara M, Notake H and Ikehata Y 2001 Study on Feasibility of Evacuation by Elevators in a High-Rise Building - Case Study for the Evacuation in the Hiroshima Motomachi High-Rise Apartments. 2nd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire (London: Interscience Communications Ltd)
29.
Groner NE (2016) A decision model for recommending which building occupants should move where during fire emergencies. Fire Saf J 80:20–29CrossRef
30.
Mossberg A, Nilsson D, Frantzich H (2022) Evaluating new evacuation systems related to human behaviour using a situational awareness approach – A study of the implementation of evacuation elevators in an underground facility. Fire Saf. J. 134:103693CrossRef
31.
Liao YJ, Lo SM, Ma J, Liu SB, Liao GX (2014) A study on people’s attitude to the use of elevators for fire escape. Fire Technol 50:363–378CrossRef
32.
Kinsey MJ, Galea ER, Lawrence PJ (2012) Human factors associated with the selection of lifts/elevators or stairs in emergency and normal usage conditions. Fire Technol 48:3–26CrossRef
33.
Heyes E, Spearpoint M (2012) Lifts for evacuation—human behaviour considerations. Fire Mater 36:297–308CrossRef
34.
Shiwakoti N, Tay R, Stasinopoulos P, Woolley PJ (2017) Likely behaviours of passengers under emergency evacuation in train station. Saf Sci 91:40–8CrossRef
35.
Abouee-Mehrizi A, Alizadeh SS, Masoomi M, Barazandeh-Asl R (2022) Likely behaviours of people under emergency circumstances in hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Int J Health Plann Manage 37:979–998CrossRef
36.
Gerges M, Penn S, Moore D, Boothman C, Liyanage C (2018) Multi-storey residential buildings and occupant’s behaviour during fire evacuation in the UK: factors relevant to the development of evacuation strategies. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 36:234–253CrossRef
37.
Aleksandrov M, Rajabifard A, Kalantari M, Lovreglio R, González VA (2018) People choice modelling for evacuation of tall buildings. Fire Technol 54:1171–1193CrossRef
38.
Butler K, Kuligowski E, Furman S, Peacock R (2017) Perspectives of occupants with mobility impairments on evacuation methods for use during fire emergencies. Fire Saf J 91:955–63CrossRef
39.
Zmud M (2008) Public perceptions of high-rise building emergency evacuation preparedness. Fire Technol 44:329–336CrossRef
40.
McConnell NC, Boyce KE (2015) Refuge areas and vertical evacuation of multistorey buildings: the end users’ perspectives. Fire Mater 39:396–406CrossRef
41.
Soltanzadeh A, Mazaherian H, Heidari S (2023) The effects of cultural behavior on the evacuation of the first residential towers built in Iran (case study: Saman twin towers from the 1970s in Tehran). J Build Eng 76:107231CrossRef
42.
Jönsson A, Andersson J, Nilsson D (2012) A risk perception analysis of elevator evacuation in high-rise buildings. Interscience Communication, Cambridge, pp 398–409
43.
Robbins A, Warren J, Calder K, Wade C (2015) Accessible emergency egress - Mapping of New Zealand guidance and community experinces 6th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Interscience Communications Ltd, Cambridge
44.
Andrée K, Frantzich H, Jönsson A and Bengtson S 2015 Attitudes about safe refuge areas as an egress strategy from the point of view of the mobility impaired people, authorities and building planners (Cambridge)
45.
Carattin E, Tatano V (2015) To areas of refuge and beyond - proposals for improving egressibility for the disabled - A Case studi in Italy 6th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire. Interscience Communications Ltd, Cambridge
46.
Lin C-H 2023 Differences between dynamic signs and static signs on the visual cognition and user experience in fire evacuation guidance Design for Emergency Management (Routledge)
47.
Ding N, Zhang H, Chen T, Luh PB (2014) Evacuees’ behaviors of using elevators during evacuation based on experiments. Transp Res Procedia 2:594–602CrossRef
48.
Ding N, Chen T, Zhang H (2017) Experimental study of elevator loading and unloading time during evacuation in high-rise buildings. Fire Technol 53:29–42CrossRef
49.
Ding N, Zhang H, Chen T (2019) Experimental study of egress selection behavior between stairs and elevators during high-rise building evacuation. Fire Technol 55:1649–1670CrossRef
50.
Ma Y, Li L, Ding N, Zhang H and Chen T 2017 Experimental Study on Evacuation Process Considering Social Relation in a Tall Building ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection)
51.
Li L, Ding N, Ma Y, Zhang H, Jin H (2020) Social relation network and group behavior based on evacuation experiments. Physica A 545:123518CrossRef
52.
Li L, Ma Y, Jin H, Zhang H and Liu Y 2016 Decision-Making and Group Behaviors in a Building Evacuation Experiments Considering Occupancy Social Network ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection)
Mossberg A, Nilsson D, Wahlqvist J (2020) Evacuation elevators in an underground metro station - A Virtual Reality evacuation experiment. Fire Saf J. 120:103091CrossRef
55.
Andrée K, Nilsson D, Eriksson J (2016) Evacuation experiments in a virtual reality high-rise building: exit choice and waiting time for evacuation elevators. Fire Mater 40:554–567CrossRef
56.
Mossberg A, Nilsson D, Andrée K (2020) Unannounced evacuation experiment in a high-rise hotel building with evacuation elevators: a study of evacuation behaviour using eye-tracking. Fire Technol 57:1259–1281CrossRef
