Human behaviour in fire - Revision history

Jan: Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

2026-11-02T18:22:20Z

Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 2 November 2026
Line 134:		Line 134:
	* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.		* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
	* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020). ''Fire safety verification method data sheets'' (Version 1.1).		* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020). ''Fire safety verification method data sheets'' (Version 1.1).
	* Bryan, J. L. (2002). Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.		* Bryan, J. L. (2002). Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 3-315–3-341). National Fire Protection Association.
	* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.		* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.
	* Proulx, G. (2002). Movement of people: The evacuation timing. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.		* Proulx, G. (2002). Movement of people: The evacuation timing. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 3-342–3-366). National Fire Protection Association.

	[[Category:Human Behaviour & Evacuation]]		[[Category:Human Behaviour & Evacuation]]

Jan: Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

2026-11-02T18:17:50Z

Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 2 November 2026
Line 87:		Line 87:
	On stairs, movement depends on step geometry and crowding as well as individual ability. Queues can form when demand exceeds the capacity of a route element. The time spent waiting is different from the time spent walking towards that restriction.<ref name="Proulx-3-347">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-347–3-348.</ref>		On stairs, movement depends on step geometry and crowding as well as individual ability. Queues can form when demand exceeds the capacity of a route element. The time spent waiting is different from the time spent walking towards that restriction.<ref name="Proulx-3-347">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-347–3-348.</ref>

	Smoke can reduce visibility and slow movement. ~~ABCB~~'s 2020 review found a lack of reliable general correlations for predicting walking speed in smoke. Its numerical modification factors are tied to the Australian verification method and should retain that context.<ref name="ABCB-280">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.</ref>		Smoke can reduce visibility and slow movement. The Australian Building Codes Board's (ABCB) 2020 review found a lack of reliable general correlations for predicting walking speed in smoke. Its numerical modification factors are tied to the Australian verification method and should retain that context.<ref name="ABCB-280">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.</ref>
	[[File:fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=An occupant slows in irritant smoke and considers another route or waiting for assistance.\|Smoke can alter walking speed and route choice. Based on Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.]]		[[File:fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=An occupant slows in irritant smoke and considers another route or waiting for assistance.\|Smoke can alter walking speed and route choice. Based on Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.]]

Line 110:		Line 110:
	== Modelling and evidence limits ==		== Modelling and evidence limits ==

	Evacuation models often simplify human behaviour. IFEG ~~describes~~ assumptions of simultaneous departure, uninterrupted movement and excellent knowledge of the shortest route. Those simplifications can help examine capacity but do not provide a complete behavioural prediction.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-3" />		Evacuation models often simplify human behaviour. The 2005 International Fire Engineering Guidelines (IFEG) describe assumptions of simultaneous departure, uninterrupted movement and excellent knowledge of the shortest route. Those simplifications can help examine capacity but do not provide a complete behavioural prediction.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-3" />

	A model should be suited to the occupancy and layout. A simple approach may fail to identify local queues or group decisions in a complex building. Expensive software does not guarantee better input data or a more faithful account of human response.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-4">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 2.8-4.</ref>		A model should be suited to the occupancy and layout. A simple approach may fail to identify local queues or group decisions in a complex building. Expensive software does not guarantee better input data or a more faithful account of human response.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-4">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 2.8-4.</ref>

Jan: Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

2026-11-02T17:56:17Z

Improve Basic article: verified sources, clearer explanation, calculations and links (GPT-6)

Show changes

Sanne: Add diagrams fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v1.svg, fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v2.svg, fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

2026-11-02T07:11:30Z

Add diagrams fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v1.svg, fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v2.svg, fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v3.svg (level-1 visual plan)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 2 November 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:

	After recognition and validation, a person defines the situation and evaluates possible responses. Bryan's process model includes commitment to an action and reassessment if it is incomplete or conditions change. Behaviour is thus a sequence rather than one irreversible choice.<ref name="Bryan-3-319" />		After recognition and validation, a person defines the situation and evaluates possible responses. Bryan's process model includes commitment to an action and reassessment if it is incomplete or conditions change. Behaviour is thus a sequence rather than one irreversible choice.<ref name="Bryan-3-319" />
			[[File:fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v1.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=Recognition leads through validation, evaluation and commitment, with feedback for reassessment.\|Human response includes decisions and reassessment over time. Based on Bryan (2002), pp. 3-318–3-319.]]

	The [[Protective action decision model]] provides another way to examine how people reach protective decisions. The important engineering issue is the connection between environmental cues, communication, interpretation and action. A model should not assume that information automatically produces the intended response.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" /><ref name="Proulx-3-348" />		The [[Protective action decision model]] provides another way to examine how people reach protective decisions. The important engineering issue is the connection between environmental cues, communication, interpretation and action. A model should not assume that information automatically produces the intended response.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" /><ref name="Proulx-3-348" />
Line 36:		Line 37:

	[[Affiliative behaviour]] is the tendency to seek or remain with people who have emotional ties. Family members may gather before leaving, and groups may travel together. This can increase preparation time while also providing assistance and shared information.<ref name="Proulx-3-344" />		[[Affiliative behaviour]] is the tendency to seek or remain with people who have emotional ties. Family members may gather before leaving, and groups may travel together. This can increase preparation time while also providing assistance and shared information.<ref name="Proulx-3-344" />
			[[File:fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v2.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=People gather family members, share information and move together at the group's pace.\|Evacuation is often a social process rather than isolated individual movement. Based on Proulx (2002), pp. 3-344–3-347.]]

	Group movement can be limited by a slower member. Proulx gives the example of a family moving with a child or older person. An individual walking-speed value may therefore be inappropriate for the group as a whole.<ref name="Proulx-3-346">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-346–3-347.</ref>		Group movement can be limited by a slower member. Proulx gives the example of a family moving with a child or older person. An individual walking-speed value may therefore be inappropriate for the group as a whole.<ref name="Proulx-3-346">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-346–3-347.</ref>
Line 72:		Line 74:

	Smoke can reduce visibility and slow movement. ABCB's 2020 review found a lack of reliable general correlations for predicting walking speed in smoke. Its numerical modification factors are tied to the Australian verification method and should retain that context.<ref name="ABCB-280">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.</ref>		Smoke can reduce visibility and slow movement. ABCB's 2020 review found a lack of reliable general correlations for predicting walking speed in smoke. Its numerical modification factors are tied to the Australian verification method and should retain that context.<ref name="ABCB-280">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.</ref>
			[[File:fse-human-behaviour-in-fire-v3.svg\|thumb\|upright=1.5\|alt=An occupant slows in irritant smoke and considers another route or waiting for assistance.\|Smoke can alter walking speed and route choice. Based on Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.]]

	Irritant smoke can affect the eyes and willingness to continue. ABCB notes that occupants may seek an alternative path or wait for assistance under its stated conditions. Route choice can therefore change after movement has begun.<ref name="ABCB-282">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), p. 282.</ref>		Irritant smoke can affect the eyes and willingness to continue. ABCB notes that occupants may seek an alternative path or wait for assistance under its stated conditions. Route choice can therefore change after movement has begun.<ref name="ABCB-282">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), p. 282.</ref>

Jan: New FSE wiki article: Human behaviour in fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

2026-11-02T02:13:01Z

New FSE wiki article: Human behaviour in fire (written by Kimi Code CLI)

New page

'''Human behaviour in fire''' is the way people perceive, interpret and respond to a developing fire and its warnings. It includes recognition of cues, decisions about action, interaction with other people and movement towards safety. Behaviour can also include investigating, warning others, collecting belongings or attempting another protective action.<ref name="Bryan-3-315">Bryan (2002), pp. 3-315–3-319.</ref><ref name="Proulx-3-342">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-342–3-344.</ref>

People do not always evacuate immediately after an alarm. Initial information can be ambiguous, and occupants may seek confirmation before deciding what to do. Familiarity, alertness, responsibilities, social relationships and the building layout influence the response.<ref name="Proulx-3-348">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-348–3-351.</ref>

Research challenges the assumption that fire behaviour is dominated by irrational panic. Proulx reports that reasonable and altruistic actions are common, while panic is rare in the reviewed fire incidents. Engineering models should represent this range of behaviour instead of treating occupants as either passive objects or reckless crowds.<ref name="Proulx-3-344" /><ref name="Bryan-3-315" />

== Perception and interpretation ==

A fire cue can be an alarm, smoke odour, visible smoke, flame, heat, noise or information from another person. Each cue supplies different evidence about the event. The observer must notice it and decide whether it indicates an emergency.<ref name="Bryan-3-316" />

Bryan describes recognition as the identification of ambiguous cues as a fire incident. Recognition can be delayed when the signs are weak or consistent with a normal event. The observer's prior experience and expectation of a favourable outcome can influence this interpretation.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" />

Validation follows when a person seeks confirmation that the initial interpretation is correct. This may involve looking for additional cues or asking other people. The process can reduce uncertainty but also consumes time before evacuation begins.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" />

Warning systems provide different amounts of information. A bell announces a signal but not its cause or the required action. Directive voice messages can explain the incident and the response, although conflicting visual cues can undermine their credibility.<ref name="Bryan-3-316" />

Repeated unwanted alarms can reduce the credibility of a warning. Proulx describes occupants becoming less willing to investigate or respond when false alarms are frequent. The alarm system's operational history therefore becomes part of the behavioural context.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

== Decision processes and protective action ==

After recognition and validation, a person defines the situation and evaluates possible responses. Bryan's process model includes commitment to an action and reassessment if it is incomplete or conditions change. Behaviour is thus a sequence rather than one irreversible choice.<ref name="Bryan-3-319" />

The [[Protective action decision model]] provides another way to examine how people reach protective decisions. The important engineering issue is the connection between environmental cues, communication, interpretation and action. A model should not assume that information automatically produces the intended response.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" /><ref name="Proulx-3-348" />

Possible actions are not limited to flight. Bryan describes decisions that can include obtaining an extinguisher, activating an alarm, seeking refuge or evacuating. The chosen response reflects the person's location, perceived threat and assessment of available options.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" />

A person can also change actions after receiving new information. Smoke along a route, a staff message or the behaviour of companions may trigger reassessment. Static calculations that assign one action at the start cannot capture those changes.<ref name="Bryan-3-319" />

Perceived time available is part of evaluation. Sime's work discussed by Bryan links this perception to information about fire location and development. Unclear or contradictory messages can therefore affect both the action selected and its timing.<ref name="Bryan-3-318" />

== Social influence and affiliation ==

The presence of other people changes cue interpretation. Bryan describes experiments in which passive companions inhibited reporting of introduced smoke. These specific findings illustrate social influence, not a universal delay for every public occupancy.<ref name="Bryan-3-317" />

People can mimic adaptive as well as nonadaptive responses. Observing others investigate, warn or evacuate can supply information about what is happening. Staff behaviour can consequently provide a strong cue when an alarm alone is ambiguous.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" /><ref name="Bryan-3-319" />

[[Affiliative behaviour]] is the tendency to seek or remain with people who have emotional ties. Family members may gather before leaving, and groups may travel together. This can increase preparation time while also providing assistance and shared information.<ref name="Proulx-3-344" />

Group movement can be limited by a slower member. Proulx gives the example of a family moving with a child or older person. An individual walking-speed value may therefore be inappropriate for the group as a whole.<ref name="Proulx-3-346">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-346–3-347.</ref>

Responsibility also affects response. Proulx contrasts occupants who expect to manage their own household alarm with visitors who wait for instructions from building staff. The distribution of expected responsibility should be considered when assigning warning and management roles.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

== Pre-movement activities ==

[[Pre-movement time]] is the period before directed evacuation travel begins. It includes perception, interpretation and preparatory action, and it may involve movement within the current space. It should not be imagined as everyone waiting motionless for one fixed duration.<ref name="Proulx-3-348" />

Observed activities include dressing, collecting children or pets, securing work, gathering belongings and contacting staff. These tasks respond to personal circumstances and the information available. Their duration can vary between occupants in the same building.<ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

Proulx's residential drills showed different response times between buildings and warning conditions. Poor alarm audibility and the arrival of other cues affected when people left. The values belong to those case studies and should not be used as universal delays.<ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

New Zealand's C/VM2, second edition, 2025, assigns pre-travel times by occupant state, familiarity, alarm signal and location relative to the fire. These are regulatory design inputs for that method. They do not eliminate the need to establish the relevant population and cue conditions.<ref name="CVM2-30">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), pp. 29–31.</ref>

Direct cues such as seeing or smelling smoke may be available near the fire, while remote occupants may rely on indirect information. C/VM2 limits when indirect cues can be assumed in its method. Social interaction and spatial arrangement therefore matter to timing analysis.<ref name="CVM2-31">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 31.</ref>

== Panic and cooperative behaviour ==

[[Panic]] is often used as a general explanation for crowd emergencies, but fire research does not support treating it as the usual response. Proulx's summary identifies panic as rare and altruistic, reasonable behaviour as common. People often act on limited and ambiguous information.<ref name="Proulx-3-344" />

Competitive rushing in some crowd incidents should not automatically be labelled as irrational panic. Proulx distinguishes different crowd phenomena and discusses density, blocked movement and communication failures. The physical conditions can create forces and risks without requiring a crowd-wide loss of reason.<ref name="Proulx-3-345">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-345–3-346.</ref>

Cooperation can include warning others, assisting with movement and sharing responsibility. Bryan reports purposeful, altruistic responses as frequent in the reviewed incidents. Such behaviour can improve some outcomes while adding actions that a simple evacuation model omits.<ref name="Bryan-3-315" />

Assuming universal panic can lead to the wrong engineering question. Instead of asking only how to suppress irrational behaviour, the analysis should examine whether information, routes and assistance match occupants' needs. Many delays arise from uncertainty and social commitments rather than uncontrolled emotion.<ref name="Proulx-3-348" /><ref name="Bryan-3-318" />

This does not mean that dangerous crowding never occurs. It means that each incident requires examination of density, route capacity, information and group interaction. A single emotional label cannot replace that analysis.<ref name="Proulx-3-345" />

== Movement and changing conditions ==

[[Walking speed]] is one part of evacuation movement, but it changes with density, route geometry, occupant characteristics and smoke. Proulx describes speed decreasing as crowding constrains movement. Clear-air unrestricted walking is not a universal emergency value.<ref name="Proulx-3-346" />

On stairs, movement depends on step geometry and crowding as well as individual ability. Queues can form when demand exceeds the capacity of a route element. The time spent waiting is different from the time spent walking towards that restriction.<ref name="Proulx-3-347" />

Smoke can reduce visibility and slow movement. ABCB's 2020 review found a lack of reliable general correlations for predicting walking speed in smoke. Its numerical modification factors are tied to the Australian verification method and should retain that context.<ref name="ABCB-280">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), pp. 280–282.</ref>

Irritant smoke can affect the eyes and willingness to continue. ABCB notes that occupants may seek an alternative path or wait for assistance under its stated conditions. Route choice can therefore change after movement has begun.<ref name="ABCB-282">Australian Building Codes Board (2020), p. 282.</ref>

[[Evacuation]] joins these movement processes to the earlier response stages. Total time includes warning, interpretation, preparation and travel to the place of safety. Treating walking speed as the entire evacuation would omit important sources of delay and variation.<ref name="Proulx-3-347" />

== Building and occupant characteristics ==

Familiarity with the building affects both route choice and information seeking. Proulx reports a preference for familiar entry routes in many situations. Emergency routes that occupants have never experienced may need clearer guidance and staff support.<ref name="Proulx-3-342" />

Alertness influences the response to an alarm. Sleeping occupants can require longer to recognise and prepare for action, while people focused on an activity may initially disregard other cues. C/VM2 reflects some of these differences in its method-specific inputs.<ref name="CVM2-30" /><ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

Physical, sensory or cognitive limitations can change preparation and movement. Proulx includes these among occupant characteristics that can extend response time. The analysis should represent the people expected to use the building rather than an assumed uniformly able population.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

Visual access to other occupants can provide information. Open spaces allow people to observe group responses, while separate rooms can limit that cue. Building layout thus affects both direct wayfinding and social interpretation of the event.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

Staff training and availability can alter the timing. Proulx describes staff prompting occupants and providing building-specific directions. Their effectiveness depends on recognition, authority, coverage of the occupied space and consistency with other cues.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

== Modelling and evidence limits ==

Evacuation models often simplify human behaviour. IFEG describes assumptions of simultaneous departure, uninterrupted movement and excellent knowledge of the shortest route. Those simplifications can help examine capacity but do not provide a complete behavioural prediction.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-3">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), pp. 2.8-3–2.8-4.</ref>

A model should be suited to the occupancy and layout. A simple approach may fail to identify local queues or group decisions in a complex building. Expensive software does not guarantee better input data or a more faithful account of human response.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-4">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 2.8-4.</ref>

Case studies and drills provide evidence about particular populations and conditions. Warning credibility, staff action, notice and weather can influence the observations. Results should retain those circumstances instead of being transferred as universal occupant constants.<ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

Interview evidence also requires careful interpretation. Recalled timings can be uncertain, and people may have experienced only part of the event. Proulx presents such studies as valuable context rather than exact measurements applicable to every incident.<ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

The engineering record should state which behaviours are represented and which are omitted. Response time, affiliation, assistance and route choice may all affect the result. Explicit assumptions make it possible to examine whether a design remains adequate when those assumptions change.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-4" /><ref name="CVM2-31" />

A behavioural design review should begin with the cues available at each occupied location. An alarm heard in an open office, a smoke odour in a closed room and a staff message in a public hall provide different information. Their timing and credibility should be assessed where the occupant actually receives them.<ref name="Bryan-3-316" /><ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

Warning content should support the intended action. A person who needs to choose a route or assist someone else requires more than an undifferentiated alert. Voice and staff messages can provide that information, but conflicting cues should be identified rather than ignored.<ref name="Bryan-3-316" />

Population descriptions should include familiarity, alertness, group relationships and assistance needs. These characteristics affect both preparation and movement. An average occupant who is awake, alone and familiar with every exit would not represent all building users.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" /><ref name="CVM2-30" />

The distribution of staff also matters. A trained person can prompt action only where occupants can see or hear that direction. Large or subdivided spaces may need different coverage, and the staff response itself belongs in the evacuation timeline.<ref name="Proulx-3-350" />

Pre-movement should be evaluated as observable activities rather than as an arbitrary safety factor. Investigation, gathering others and preparing for travel have causes that can be examined. This makes it possible to assess how better information or management could change the delay.<ref name="Proulx-3-348" /><ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

Route assessment should allow for social and physical changes during travel. Groups can slow to assist a member, and smoke can cause people to reject the initial path. A shortest-route calculation with fixed speeds would not show those decisions.<ref name="Proulx-3-346" /><ref name="ABCB-282" />

Model results should be checked against plausible actions in the actual building. If occupants normally enter through one route, it is useful to examine whether they will find and accept another under emergency conditions. That question connects spatial layout with human response.<ref name="Proulx-3-342" />

Documenting these assumptions makes the behavioural analysis open to review. The record should distinguish observed evidence, prescribed inputs and modelling simplifications. This allows the effects of different warning systems, occupant groups and staff arrangements to be examined without presenting any one behaviour as universal.<ref name="IFEG-2-8-4" /><ref name="Proulx-3-349" />

== See also ==

* [[Escape signage]]
* [[Evacuation modelling]]
* [[Voice alarm system]]

== Notes ==

<ref name="Bryan-3-316">Bryan (2002), pp. 3-315–3-316.</ref>
<ref name="Bryan-3-317">Bryan (2002), pp. 3-317–3-318.</ref>
<ref name="Bryan-3-318">Bryan (2002), pp. 3-318–3-319.</ref>
<ref name="Bryan-3-319">Bryan (2002), p. 3-319.</ref>
<ref name="Proulx-3-344">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-344–3-345.</ref>
<ref name="Proulx-3-347">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-347–3-348.</ref>
<ref name="Proulx-3-349">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-348–3-350.</ref>
<ref name="Proulx-3-350">Proulx (2002), pp. 3-350–3-351.</ref>
<references />

== References ==

* Australian Building Codes Board. (2020). ''Fire safety verification method data sheets'' (Version 1.1). Author.
* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
* Bryan, J. L. (2002). Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.
* Proulx, G. (2002). Movement of people: The evacuation timing. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.

[[Category:Human Behaviour & Evacuation]]