Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
Paper (National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research); no. DBR-P-699, 1977-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=ed8f14fb-4eae-4e93-bc36-ed7711e0e472 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=ed8f14fb-4eae-4e93-bc36-ed7711e0e472
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Considerations of life safety and building use
Gordon, C. C.; National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research
National
Research
Consdl nationalCouncil
Canada de recherch~ QmdaCONSIDERATIONS
OF
LIFE SAFETY
AND
BUILDING
USE
by
Cbarle~
C.
Gordon
" - I-
DBR
PaperNo.
699Division
ofB d i n g Research
NRCC
15566 - - BUILBNG RESEARCH-
LIBRARY
-
F E 8
17W
w-.pruurrF-YT
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA D I V I S I O N OF BUILDING RESEARCH
CONSIDERATIONS OF L I F E SAFETY AND BUILDING USE
by C h a r l e s C . G o r d o n DBR P a p e r N o . 699 o f t h e D i v i s i o n o f B u i l d i n g R e s e a r c h OTTAWA, January 1977
CONSIDERATIONS OF LIFE SAFETY AND BUILDING USE by C h a r l e s C. Gordon
ABSTRACT
The c o n c e p t o f l i f e s a f e t y h a s n o t been d e f i n e d a d e q u a t e l y i n b u i l d i n g codes. For purposes o f d i s c u s s i o n i t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t "freedom from h a z a r d , i n j u r y o r l o s s o f l i f e " might p r o v i d e a working b a s i s . T h i s p a p e r w i l l r e l a t e t h e s t e p s t a k e n t o e n s u r e l i f e s a f e t y i n c e r t a i n k i n d s o f s p a c e s t o t h e normal u s e s o f t h o s e s p a c e s . Three r e l a t e d s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s a r e a n a l y s e d : 1 ) t h e normal occupancy o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; 2) t h e d i s t u r b a n c e o f normal occupancy, i n i t s e l f a s o c i a l as w e l l a s a t e c h n i c a l p r o c e s s ;
3) t h e l i f e s a f e t y system, which i s a n a t t e m p t t o cope w i t h d i s t u r b a n c e i n t h e hope o f p r e s e r v i n g 'normal occupancy.
CONSIDERATIONS SUR LA SECURITE DES PERSONNES ET SUR L' USAGE DU BATIMENT p a r C h a r l e s C. Gordon
RESUME
Le concept de s 6 c u r i t 6 d e s p e r s o n n e s n ' a p a s 6 t 6 d 6 f i n i p a r l e s codes du b g t i m e n t . A d e s f i n s de d i s c u s s i o n il e s t s u g g 6 r 6 que " l ' a b s e n c e de r i s q u e , de b l e s s u r e ou de p e r t e de v i e " p e u t f o u r n i r une b a s e de t r a v a i l . C e t t e communication m e t t r a e n r a p p o r t l e s mesures p r i s e s pour a s s u r e r l a s 6 c u r i t 6 des p e r s o n n e s dans c e r t a i n e s s o r t e s de l o c a u x a v e c l e s usages de c e s l o c a u x . T r o i s p r o c e s s u s s o c i a u x a y a n t un r a p p o r t ensemble s o n t a n a l y s 6 s : 1 ) l ' u s a g e normal d'un b s t i m e n t ; 2) l a p e r t u r b a t i o n de l ' u s a g e normal, e n elle-&me un p r o c e s s u s s o c i a l a u s s i b i e n que t e c h n i q u e ; 3) l e systgme de s E c u r i t 6 d e s p e r s o n n e s , q u i e s t une t e n t a t i v e de f a i r e f a c e B l a p e r t u r b a t i o n dans l ' e s p o i r de p r g s e r v e r l ' u s a g e normal.
PREFACE
During t h e summer o f 1973, t h e a u t h o r s p e n t some time w i t h t h e B u i l d i n g Use S * c t i o n o f t h e D i v i s i o n o f B u i l d i n g Research s t u d y i n g t h e t y p e o f problem p r e s e n t e d t o t h e S e c t i o n i n d e v e l o p i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g b u i l d i n g codes. ?he c a s e s t u d i e s t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d a r e o f b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l and s u b s t a n t i v e i n t e r e s t t o t h e a u t h o r a s a s o c i o l o g i s t ; b u t b e f o r e a n y t h i n g e l s e they a r e real q u e s t i o n s t h a t pose genuine dilemmas f o r t h e enforcement o f b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s
.
A s p r e s e n t e d , t h e c a s e s t u d i e s a r e i n c o m p l e t e ; t h e i r d e g r e e o f r e s o l u t i o n v a r i e s , and t h e r e a r e gaps t h a t remain t o b e f i l l e d . They do, however, s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i s s u e s t h a t f r e q u e n t l y a r i s e . They a r e i n t e n d e d :
1) t o show ways i n which a s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e can b e u s e f u l l y a p p l i e d t o problems o f occupancy and l i f e s a f e t y ;
2) t o s u g g e s t ways i n which r e - a n a l y s i s o f o c c u p a n c i e s can b e u s e f u l i n t h e development o f t h e Use and Occupancy s e c t i o n o f t h e N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code, p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o l i f e s a f e t y ;
3) t o s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r t h e k i n d o f t h e o r y o f occupancy r e q u i r e d f o r a knowledge-based Code.*
With r e g a r d t o t h e l a s t p o i n t , t h e a u t h o r h a s been working on a model o f t h e r e l a t i o n between b u i l d i n g and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e a s p a r t o f a c o u r s e on s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r and t h e b u i l t environment. The c a s e s t u d i e s s e r v e a s a t e s t f o r some o f t h e c o n c e p t s o f t h a t model (which i s r e p o r t e d i n a s h o r t p a p e r a v a i l a b l e upon r e q u e s t )
.
* See a l s o Ferguson, K.S. The Development o f a Knowledge-Based B u i l d i n g Code. N a t i o n a l Research Council o f Canada, D i v i s i o n o f B u i l d i n g Research,
CONSIDERATIONS OF LIFE SAFETY A N D BUILDING U S E
by
C h a r l e s C . Gordon*
The c o n c e p t o f l i f e s a f e t y h a s n o t been d e f i n e d a d e q u a t e l y i n b u i l d i n g codes. For p u r p o s e s o f d i s c u s s i o n i t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t "freedom from h a z a r d , i n j u r y o r l o s s o f l i f e " might p r o v i d e a working b a s i s . T h i s p a p e r w i l l r e l a t e t h e s t e p s t a k e n t o e n s u r e l i f e s a f e t y i n c e r t a i n k i n d s o f s p a c e s t o t h e normal u s e s o f t h o s e s p a c e s . Three r e l a t e d s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s a r e a n a l y s e d :
1) t h e normal occupancy o f t h e b u i l d i n g ;
2) t h e d i s t u r b a n c e o f normal occupancy, i n i t s e l f a s o c i a l a s well a s a
t e c h n i c a l p r o c e s s ;
3) t h e l i f e s a f e t y system, which i s an a t t e m p t t o cope w i t h d i s t u r b a n c e i n t h e hope o f p r e s e r v i n g normal occupancy.
EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES
Extended Care Guide1 i n e s
,
i s s u e d by t h e B r i t i s h Columbia H e a l t h I n s u r a n c e S e r v i c e ( l ) , i s remarkable f o r t h e c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n o f occupancy i t p r o v i d e s . F a r more t h a n i s u s u a l i t s t a t e s t h e use t o b e made o f t h e b u i l d i n g Y L w h o is e l i g i b l e t o u s e i t , and i t s r e l a t i o n t o i t s s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment.I
Pages 1 and 2 o f t h i s document d e f i n e t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e h o s p i t a l i n terms o f t h e k i n d s o f c a r e r e q u i r e d ; t h e need f o r such c a r e i s t h e c r i t e r i o n f o rI
admission t o t h e f a c i l i t y .I
The g u i d e l i n e s examine t h e p o t e n t i a l u s e s of t h e b u i l d i n g and d e a l w i t h
I
u s e r s i n i s a l l t o o e a s y t o conceive o f a " t y p i c a l " occupant, d e s i g n f o r t h a t i n d i v i d u a l , terms o f a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n . I t and r e g u l a t e f o r him. But t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s l o s t t o t h e d e s i g n e r by s u c h4 an approach may make i t v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o d e s i g n a workable b u i l d i n g . The B . C .
1
document p r o v i d e s f o r a b r o a d e r b a s e o f knowledge a b o u t t h e p a t i e n t s .i
There i s a l s o a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t of t h e t r e a t m e n t approach t h a t i si n t e n d e d , and even o f t h e concept o f t h e p a t i e n t . I t i s a s t a t e m e n t o f p h i l o s o p h y and p o l i c y , p r o v i d i n g t h e g o a l s o f t h e occupancy and t h e s e r v i c e
I t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o p r o v i d e .
I n p r o v i d i n g such a s t a t e m e n t , t h e g u i d e l i n e s c l a r i f y t h e p o l i c y t h e p l a n n e r s and management i n t e n d t o f o l l o w . I t is worth n o t i n g , a l s o , t h a t t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t two o t h e r groups w i t h t ' p o l i c i e s " f o r an extended c a r e f a c i l i t y
-
t h e p a t i e n t s , and t h e i r f a m i l i e s .Extended c a r e f a c i l i t i e s a r e a good example o f t h e problems i n h e r e n t i n d e a l i n g w i t h l i f e s a f e t y systems a s s e p a r a t e from day-to-day o p e r a t i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s o f an occupancy. This i s a conceptual " s e p a r a t i o n " and shows up i n c o n f l i c t s between t h e l i f e s a f e t y equipment and t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f s t a f f and p a t i e n t s . One example i n v o l v e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f door c l o s e r s on rooms. Where door c l o s e r s a r e r e q u i r e d , i t i s o f t e n found t h a t s t a f f p r o p them open b e c a u s e t h e problems i n v o l v e d i n watching p a t i e n t s o r moving them a b o u t a r e g r e a t l y complicated by c l o s e d f i r e d o o r s . (This h a s been r e f e r r e d t o a s s t a f f "abuse" o f t h e l i f e s a f e t y system.) The r e s p o n s e h a s been a tendency t o seek ways t o e n s u r e t h a t f i r e s e p a r a t i o n i s achieved, whatever s t a f f and p a t i e n t s might do t o p r e v e n t i t . Thus, t h e o p e r a t i o n a l sequence r u n s a s f o l l o w s :
Normal o p e r a t i o n s -+ "Fire" -t Implementation o f l i f e s a f e t y systems
This sequence h a s t h e e f f e c t o f c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h o p e r a t i o n s and o f f r u s t r a t i n g them i n terms o f t h e i r p o t e n t i a l r o l e i n l i f e s a f e t y systems. F u r t h e r , i t w a s t e s t h e r o l e t h a t l i f e s a f e t y systems might p l a y i n normal o p e r a t i o n s . T h i s l a s t p o i n t may b e an i d e a l i s t i c one, b u t i t i s worth examin-
i n g a s a f i r s t s t e p i n t h e program f o r a n extended c a r e f a c i l i t y . l l e p o i n t of such a f a c i l i t y i s t o p r o v i d e c a r e f o r t h e p a t i e n t s o t h a t " t h e p a t i e n t may become a s f u n c t i o n a l l y independent a s p o s s i b l e , and t h e r e b y l e a d a more u s e f u l and f u l f i l l i n g l i f e " ( 1 ) . The q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e l i f e s a f e t y system c a n make u s e o f h o s p i t a l programs t h a t work towards t h i s end; and i d e a l l y , whether p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l i f e s a f e t y system can make ' t h e p a t i e n t more " f u n c t i o n a l l y independent.
"
T h i s approach makes l i f e s a f e t y n o t a r e a c t i v e system b u t an a c t i v e and p r e v e n t i v e one. I t s e e s l i f e s a f e t y n o t o n l y as l i f e p r e s e r v i n g b u t a l s o a s l i f e enhancing. I t means more t h a n simply p r o v i d i n g f i r e s e p a r a -t i o n ; i t means t h e m o n i t o r i n g o f e v e n t s , by b o t h s t a f f and p a t i e n t s , t h a t n e g a t e s t h e need f o r f i r e s e p a r a t i o n .
The "buddy" system, used e x t e n s i v e l y when c h i l d r e n a r e swimming, i s a f a m i l i a r s a f e t y measure t h a t complements t h e d u t i e s o f l i f e g u a r d s and e n s u r e s t h a t c h i l d r e n w i l l watch one a n o t h e r . I f b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s i n s i s t on f i r e s e p a r a t i o n s i n terms o f door c l o s e r s , w a l l s , e t c . , t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e "buddy" system i s l o s t ; and such a system j u s t might, i n terms o f u s i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e h o s p i t a l , b e a very u s e f u l p a r t o f l i f e s a f e t y .
I f a l i f e s a f e t y system i n a h o s p i t a l comes i n t o p l a y o n l y when an alarm sounds, p e o p l e whose l e a r n i n g s k i l l s a r e a t t e n u a t e d and whose p h y s i c a l s k i l l s a r e l i m i t e d w i l l b e asked t o do u n f a m i l i a r t h i n g s under c o n d i t i o n s o f s t r e s s . This almost c e r t a i n l y w i l l i n v i t e t r o u b l e . I f l i f e s a f e t y , i n terms o f equip- ment and o r g a n i z a t i o n , were i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e normal o p e r a t i o n o f t h e
h o s p i t a l , i t would f u n c t i o n much more e f f e c t i v e l y i n terms o f i t s own o b j e c t i v e s a s w e l l a s h e l p t o a c h i e v e t h e g o a l s o f t h e occupancy.
The k i n d o f i n t e g r a t i o n proposed h e r e w i l l , i t i s c l e a r , r e q u i r e under- s t a n d i n g o f t h e extended c a r e f a c i l i t y a s a day-to-day s o c i a l p r o c e s s . I t
w i l l r e q u i r e a n acceptance o f t h e f a c t t h a t l i f e s a f e t y i s a day-to-day s o c i a l p r o c e s s .
Discussion o f extended c a r e f a c i l i t i e s made a n o t h e r p o i n t c l e a r . Separa- t i o n o f l i f e s a f e t y from t h e r e s t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n i s , i n p a r t , a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e b u i l d i n g p r o c e s s . Thc " f i r e " man t a l k s about f i r e , and people i n v o l v e d i n o p e r a t i n g a b u i l d i n g r e g a r d
" c o n t r o l " a s a n e c e s s a r y n u i s a n c e a t b e s t . One o f t h e f u n c t i o n s o f r e s e a r c h w i l l b e t o p r o v i d e t h e common vocabulary f o r a l l s p e c i a l i s t s .
PUBLIC SPACES
P u b l i c s p a c e s do n o t r e p r e s e n t , s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , a s i n g l e c a s e s t u d y . Rather, t h e y r e p r e s e n t a number o f c a s e s t u d i e s . They a p p e a r a g a i n and a g a i n a s problems o f v a r i o u s occupancies t h a t must b e r e g u l a t e d : s p a c e s w i t h i n b u i l d - i n g s ( p u b l i c c o r r i d o r s and shopping m a l l s ) ; s t r u c t u r e s ( s t a d i a o r a i r p o r t s ) ; and s p a c e s between b u i l d i n g s ( p l a z a s o r s t r e e t s ) .
Spaces between b u i l d i n g s may n o t b e a concern o f b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n ; on t h e o t h e r hand, i t i s h a r d t o e x c l u d e them. Behaviour i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a b u i l d i n g o r e n c l o s u r e i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d t o t h e s t r u c t u r e , f o r t h e " i n s i d e / o u t s i d e " d i s t i n c t i o n becomes r a t h e r f u z z y . One of t h e consequences o f t h e n o n - b e a r i n g w a l l i s a l o t more openness i n t h e f a c e of a b u i l d i n g . Things can move through t h e boundary s o e a s i l y t h a t i t need no l o n g e r b e a p h y s i c a l boundary; and t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e symbolic b o u n d a r i e s of t h e system i s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . For example, i n a h o s p i t a l i n Rehovoth, I s r a e l , each ward i s i n a s e p a r a t e s t r u c t u r e and t h e " c o r r i d o r s " a r e t h e s i d e w a l k s . How does one d e f i n e b o u n d a r i e s t h e r e ? A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e n a t u r e o f a l a r g e b u i l d i n g a f f e c t s t h e s p a c e s around i t . This is t r u e i n a m e t e r o l o g i c a l s e n s e (wind e f f e c t s ) ; i n an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e n s e ( t h e b u i l d i n g a s a volume i n s p a c e ) ; and i n a l e g a l s e n s e ( t h e Sparks S t r e e t Mall A u t h o r i t y , Ottawa, Canada).
What t h e n , i n s i d e o r o u t , i s a p u b l i c s p a c e and how i s i t d i f f e r e n t from a p r i v a t e s p a c e ? The National B u i l d i n g Code o f Canada d e f i n e s a p u b l i c
c o r r i d o r a s a s p a c e p r o v i d i n g a c c e s s t o a means o f e g r e s s . I t now seems t o b e an i n a d e q u a t e d e f i n i t i o n , i f o n l y because a p r i v a t e s p a c e can a l s o b e an a c c e s s t o e g r e s s . The key t o t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s p a c e l i e s i n t h e k i n d o f c o n t r o l e x e r c i z e d o v e r t h e s p a c e , by whom, and o v e r whom.
One way o f l o o k i n g a t t h i s q u e s t i o n o f c o n t r o l i s t o examine t h e freedom o f a c c e s s t o t h e s p a c e . The more r e s t r i c t e d t h a t a c c e s s , t h e l e s s p u b l i c i s
t h e s p a c e . The p o i n t i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e law: p u b l i c p l a c e s cannot e x c l u d e people on grounds of r a c e , c r e e d , e t c . ( T h i s i s what makes them p u b l i c ;
government f i n a n c i n g does n o t , p e r s e , do s o , a l t h o u g h governments a r e u s u a l l y f o r b i d d e n t o f i n a n c e p r i v a t e s p a c e s . )
The d e g r e e o f c o n t r o l i s n o t an a l l - o r - n o t h i n g p r o p o s i t i o n ; few s p a c e s w i l l admit everyone o r e x c l u d e everyonc. T h u s , s p a c e s a r e o n l y morc o r l e s s p u b l i c . l'he d e g r e e o f c o n t r o l can b c c x c r c i s e d i n terms n o t o n l y of admission
t o a s p a c e b u t a l s o o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n i t . A s p a c e i s
p u b l i c t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n i t a r e determined by t h e i n d i v i d u a l a s h e moves through i t , o r by some form o f a u t h o r i t y .
The q u e s t i o n becomes: what k i n d o f a u t h o r i t y works i n what k i n d o f s p a c e ? An analogy might b e a p p r o p r i a t e . The completely p u b l i c s p a c e i s a " f r e e market" i n s p a t i a l t e r m s , a p l a c e where each i n d i v i d u a l i s equal i n terms o f h i s power o v e r t h e s i t u a t i o n . I n t h e p u b l i c s p a c e no one h a s c o n t r o l ; t h u s , each p e r s o n must "bargain" t o c o n t r o l h i s own p a r t o f t h e s p a c e o r t o move through i t . The d e t a i l s o f t h i s b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s have been d e s c r i b e d i n some d e t a i l by
-4-
The free market has probably never existed in economic or spatial terms.
I
i
There are, however, times and spaces where relatively little authority is exerted because it can't or won't be exercised. Within buildings, public
spaces are those where the various authority systems do not operate -
hallways, lobbies, and so forth. Newman, in Defensible Space (4), proposes that crime in housing could be reduced by making public spaces more private; that since authority (such as the police) is usually too distant to be
immediately useful, buildings should be designed to allow the community
I
within the building to control its common spaces. The corridor of a shopping mall is a problem area because no one is sure who has jurisdiction over it;
there is no control. The same question applies in public structures, or \
between structures : "Who is in charge?".
In terms of the provision of life safety there seem to be two
approaches: 1) one can try to adjust the building to the public situation;
or 2) one can try to make the situation more private by attempting to
change the social organization of an area.
Solutions tend to be as much organizational as mechanical. The
criterion for choice is the impact any solution may have on the achievement of the purpose of the building. What, for instance, would be the impact of extending strict authority over a recreational area; would that destroy the recreation? tiow do you regulate an adventure playground?
In the most public spaces, that is, in those with the least organization, mechanical solutions will be very difficult; the nature of the occupancy
creates a problem of learning, on the spot, what to do and how to use the equipment. The solution seems to be to make spaces as private as possible, consonant with the nature of the occupancy.
PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION DETECTORS (POCD'S)
POCDts are being introduced into a number of different occupancies so
that, like sprinklers, they represent attempts at mechanical solutions of I
what are also organizational concerns. The point of a POCD is, as the author understands it, to arouse people to the existence of a danger and to get them to act to remove themselves from it. This is a problem of
information display and information transfer. (Getting people out of a building or extinguishing fire is another kind of problem.) The concern then becomes the nature of the information that the POCD provides. Does it provide the listener with information that will allow him (or compel him) to take requisite action? To examine this, one must examine the kind of social processcs within which this information transfer will take place: who are warned, what are they doing, how are they likely to act on the information? Essentially, one is looking at a decision-making process.
1
Warning + Information + Decision -* Action
[Alarm?
)
What is desired is that particular actions take place; between these events lie the decoding and interpretation of information, a decision to take action, and the choice of an appropriate action.
What kind of information does a POCD provide? It is a warning, not an alarm. It does not necessarily indicate a fire; only that something like a fire has triggered an alert. It is an ambiguous warning. The
information content is limited; all that is learned is that something is happening.
Such information is not trivial, however. It warns the individual that action may have to be taken, whether serious or not. It does not say what to look for, or where. The key to the value of the POCD is also the problem: it is registering combustion somewhere unspecified, even unsuspected; hence, the "fourteen false alarms for every true one1'. Although they may turn out to be false alarms, the warnings are genuine. What makes them "false1' is the kind of action they require.
An alarm is something important; it calls in specialists and signals disaster. A warning can be dealt with "at home," and does not disturb
routine. If an alarm sounds and nothing "important" ensues, it is false and people react to it as false. The alarm will be undervalued as a cue to action. Thus, if a POCD triggers the same sort of events as a fire (siren, gong, etc.) but nothing really happens, it will all too soon be ignored.
The POCD does nothing but stimulate a search, very often for information that seems trivial. How is the information to be judged? This process will often involve a group of people. In fact, it is group information
perception, processing and decision-making under conditions that may include stress. The literature on group effects on perception is extensive. The group can precipitate dramatic errors in perception, particularly for an individual. The reverse, the influence of the individual on the group's perceptions, is less clear. One may reasonably say that in ambiguous
situations a group will readily accept the definition or explanation offered by one person. The famous Orson Welles broadcast of "War of the Worlds" is perhaps the best example. The information cannot be too outlandish; it must be plausible. In some situations, however, almost anything may seem
plausible. Thus, one of the variables that must be examined is the kind of group that forms the "audience," or information-processing group, for the POCD.
Equally important is the way the group functions as a decision-making body. To some extent the action/decision is taken by a committee (if there
is no clear decision maker). This is particularly true for POCD warnings,
where there is a certain amount of time available for decision.
The variable again turns on the nature of the occupancy. The taking
of a decision within a group is obviously related to the kind of authority
patterns that exist within the group. If POCD1s are introduced into
residential occupancies, then the authority pattern of the family group will determine the decision. This suggests two bodies of research: group
decision-making under stress conditions; and authority and leadership
patterns in the family. Both areas have been extensively studied, although the results have not been combined (and the groups have usually been
studied under laboratory-induced stress).
The authority structure is something that need? examination in any occupancy: schools, office buildings, assemblies. Studies of evacuation of government office buildings suggest greater success when the life safety
organization and existing authority system are complementary. If this is
true in an alarm situation when the decision boundaries are limited, how much
more important must it be in the warning situation when the information is
All of this is confounded by the learning process. Ideally, each POCD warning would lead to knowledge of appropriate action and a group would gradually evolve a life-safety system of its own. There are, however, too many variables in the learning process to assure such an ideal. The group may, because of the trivial nature of some of the phenomena that trigger the POCD, learn to ignore the warning, or learn to make an incomplete search simply because earlier alarms proved false.
Thus the POCD as a technical device may create as many life safety problems as it solves, unless there is organization to handle it.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF OCCUPANCY
It seems clear that occupancy refers to a persevering pattern of human interaction relating to 1) a specific set of goals (whether latent or manifest), and 2) a specific physical setting. The occupancy defines the setting; and the setting is expected to support and protect the activities for which it was designed so that the goals can be continually pursued.
If this definition is correct, then what is the function of building regulations? In their origins, they were meant to ensure that occupancies could be maintained or restored if an adjacent one suffered some mishap.
The mishap was the starting point: "if my house burns and sets fire to yours, I am responsible for restoring your house." Before long, the concern shifted towards prevention rather than restoration. It was forbidden to build a house in such a way or in such a place that another might take fire from it. Later still, regulations would be written to ensure the individual's
safety should his house catch fire.
These regulations are based on questions of property ownership. The social pattern to be protected extends beyond the individual occupancy to the broader, institutional patterns of society. An institution, therefore, is the means a society adopts to solve a particular problem related to its continuation. The regulation of buildings seeks to maintain institutional patterns as well as the specific pattern of the occupancy. When conflicts arise between the general and the specific, the broader institutional concern dominates.
The regulation of buildings in terms of preservation of life safety as it relates to preservation of the building itself is a case in point.
Actually, there is a three-way relation among: 1) preservation of
individuals; 2) preservation of the occupancy (the pattern of relationships
among those individuals or other individuals); and 3) preservation of the
setting of the occupancy. By way of analogy, one may look at the preser- vation of actors, and/or the script, and/or the stage. The ideal is to preserve all three. Usually it is a moral precept that the building will
be sacrificed to the preservation of life - but which life - is it better to
sacrifice some lives in order to preserve the occupancy for a greater number of other lives?
The question becomes one of designing so that the preservation of any
one of these elements is congruent with the preservation of the others. A
"supplementary" question follows: how does one write regulations that will maintain this congruence? It starts with the nature of the occupancy, which can be used both to protect individuals and to preserve the setting.
A general model of occupancy, proposed earlier, thus requires a means
of analysing life safety within it. A sub-model for examining life safety
may be found in the field of accident research. Such an approach has been suggested by cases already examined, and is based upon the idea that life
safety systems exist to deal with accidents in the occupancy. Suchman (5)
says that an event tends to be labelled an accident to the extent that it is unexpected, cannot be avoided, and is not the result of deliberate action.
Much accident research is carried out in terms of accidents to
individuals. The kinds of events that life safety systems must prevent or deal with are analogous events, seen in the framework of the persevering pattern that is the occupancy. In dealing with industrial accidents,
Surrey (6) presents a decision model, shown in Figure 1.
This model emphasizes a dbal decision process: first, perception of a build-up of danger, leading to elimination of the hazard, or, failing this, an imminent danger; second,determination of whether the danger results in injury or damage.
As suggested in the discussion of products of combustion detectors, each occupancy is an information channel and a decision-making group. The key to life safety lies in prevention, but should it fail the preservation of the occupancy, of individuals and the structure itself is dependent upon understanding and using the decision processes inherent in the
occupancy. When this process fails, an imminent danger exists, and an extra decision is added in terms of a choice among individuals, occupancy, and structure.
There is considerable information available on individual, group and organizational decision-making that needs to be brought into focus for application to this problem. The accident frame of reference is useful in terms of life safety. Which frame of reference will be applicable to the other concerns of building regulation remains a question. The kind of
analysis that can be applied to life safety can be applied to those problems also, but it involves specific examination of occupancies in terms of their existence as social processes; and examination of their relation to
regulation concerns,also expressed as social processes. DISCUSSION
One of the cliches of the past few years is the statement that "if
you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Applying this to current concerns, it reads "if building control is not part of the
occupancy, it is a problem for the occupancy." It can probably be added that it becomes a problem extremely difficult to solve.
There is a tendency to see building control as separate from the
occupancy, if not opposed to it; but if this view is maintained the regulation is bound to fail. In terms of life safety, it means requiring people to use a building in a new way precisely when they are least able to handle new ways of doing things. In terms of structural controls, it means setting up the building as a constraint rather than as a tool of the occupancy. The building will be used, but it will be used in ways that neither the
designer nor the regulations have foreseen. The result is potentially dangerous misuse of the building. If regulation and occupancy are not
This happens all too often. A hazard is, in some senses, a creation of the regulations. If the building control is part of the occupancy, if it uses the occupancy (and vice versa), then the uses of the building become more predictable and thus less hazardous. Having suggested the need for such integration, one should not minimize its difficulty. It requires a degree of knowledge that is not as yet available about occupancies and the uses to which people put buildings. It therefore requires a great deal of study and a systematic use of the knowledge that is gained. It requires some basic theory in the area of the use of buildings.
The problem of integration has implications for the process of regulation, as well. At present, regulation is a matter of relations
between specialist/professionals working in symbolic terms. Those relations,
because of the disparate training of the specialists and the growth of bodies of knowledge within their separate disciplines, makes integration all the more difficult. Systematic knowledge in building use could serve as a lingua franca for regulating in terms of integration.
There are two paths by which this knowledge can be gathered: one in terms of the research process; the other in the ongoing process of building. The regulation process involves the development of feedback mechanisms
between the two. The attached diagram suggests how this feedback might
take place (Figure 2). The designer, who knows what the building is to be
used for, analyses that use in terms of a number of variables
-
projectedpopulation, life-cycle, etc. He designs for certain values of those variables and that design is his occupancy profile. The program in its turn presents certain problems.
The research stream provides information at each stage. At the
enforcement stage it provides a set of alternative solutions to the problems that the occupancy program raises.
The building is constructed on the basis of the decisions made at this point. Ideally, it is evaluated in use and the information is fed back to both designer and researcher.
CONCLUSIONS
As a preliminary report, this paper raises as many questions as it answers. It points up the need for further examination of different kinds of occupancies. There are three aspects to the problem:
(1) the need for knowledge about the ways in which peoplc usc buildings, so that regulation can further their aims and protect their well-being;
(2) the need to redefine occupancies in such a way that they will allow for
more flexible and appropriate regulation; to redefine the occupancies in terms of actual use rather than a named category;
( 3 ) to provide the basis for a systematic theory of building use; as
knowledge is acquired, such a theory will be required to make that knowledge more readily understandable and usable.
REFERENCES
1. British Columbia Health Insurance System. Extended Care Guidelines,
Victoria, 1973.
2. Goffman, E. Behavior in Public Places, New York, Free Press of Glencoe,
1966.
3. Goffman, E. Relations in Public, New York, Basic Books, 1971.
4. Newman, 0. Defensible Space, New York, MacMillan, 1973.
5. Suchman, E. A Conceptual Analysis of the Accident Phenomenon, - in
Social Problems, 8 : 3 , 241-253, 1961.
6. Surrey, J. Industrial Accident Research, Toronto, University of
C O G N I T I V E P R O C E S S E S P H Y S I O L O G I C A L R E S P O N S E P E R C E P T I O N C O G N I T I V E P R O C E S S E S P H Y S I O L O G I C A L R E S P O N S E M A N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
1
W A R N I N G O F DANGER BUILDUP? PERCEPTION O F W A R N I N G ? I NO R E C O G N I T I O N O F W A R N I N G ? 4 K t C O G N l T l O N O F DECISION TO L ABILITY TO I M M I N E N T DANGER HAZARD W A R N I N G O F DANGER RELEASE? I) PERCEPTION O F W A R N I N G ? YES I K l C O G N l T l O N OF DECISION r o DAMAGE F I G U R E 1 D A N G E R R E L E A S E - E M E R G E N C Y P E R I O,D A D E C I S I O N M O D E L OF T H E A C C I D E N T P R O C E S S i t IROM: 5 U R R I Y , J . I N D U S T R I A L A C C l D t N T R E S E A R C H , I O K O N I O , L I N I V i K 5 I I Y OF T O R O N l O P R E L S , 1 9 6 6 , P . 4 1 )D E S I G N R E S E A R C H r A N A L Y S I S O F S Y S T E M S
