2.0 Risk
2.1 Definition
2.2
Probability Levels
2.3 Consequence Levels
2.4 Overall Level
of Risk and Priority
3.0 Community Fire Risk Factors
3.1 Property Stock
3.2 Building Height and Area
3.3 Building Age and
Construction
3.4 Building Exposures
3.5 Demographics Profile
3.6 Geography/Topography/Road Infrastructure
3.7 Past Fire
Loss Statistics
3.8 Fuel Load
4.0 Assessing Fire Risk Scenarios
Assessing the fire risk within a community is one of the seven components that comprise the Comprehensive Fire Safety Effectiveness Model. It is the process of examining and analyzing the relevant factors that characterize the community and applying this information to identify potential fire risk scenarios that may be encountered. The assessment includes an analysis of the likelihood of these scenarios occurring and their subsequent consequences. In essence, fire risk assessment attempts to answer the following questions.
This information serves as the basis for formulating and prioritizing fire risk management decisions to reduce the likelihood of these events from occurring and to mitigate the impact of these events when they occur.
Risk is defined as a measure of the probability and consequence of an adverse effect to health, property, organization, environment, or community as a result of an event, activity or operation. For the purposes of the Fire Risk Sub-model, such an event refers to a fire incident along with the effects of heat, smoke and toxicity threats generated from the incident.
The probability or likelihood of a fire within a community is often estimated based on the frequency of previous experiences. A review of past events may involve extracting relevant historical fire loss data, learning from the experiences of other municipalities, and consulting members of the community with extensive historical knowledge. Professional judgment based on experience should also be exercised in combination with historical information to estimate probability levels. An evaluation of the probability of an event can be categorized into 5 levels of likelihood:
|
Description |
Level |
Specifics |
|---|---|---|
| Rare | 1 |
-may occur in exceptional circumstances -no incidents in the past 15 years |
| Unlikely | 2 |
-could occur at some time, especially if circumstances change
-5 to 15 years since last incident |
| Possible | 3 |
-might occur under current circumstances -1 incident in the past 5 years |
| Likely | 4 |
-will probably occur at some time under current circumstances -multiple or recurring incidents in the past 5 years |
| Almost Certain | 5 |
-expected to occur in most circumstances unless circumstances change -multiple or recurring incidents in the past year |
Note: The frequency of incidents provided
should only be used as a general guide when determining this value. It
should be complemented with consideration of events that occur within other
communities. Events that have not taken place for a long time in your
community may occur more frequently elsewhere. This may serve as an
indicator that there could be a strong likelihood than what historical data
indicates.
The consequences as a result of fire are the potential losses or negative outcomes associated with the event. The application of professional judgment and reviews of past occurrences are important methods used for quantifying consequence levels. Estimating the consequence level due to fire involves an evaluation of four components:
An evaluation of the consequence due to fire can be categorized into 5 levels based on severity:
| Description | Level | Specifics |
|---|---|---|
| Insignificant | 1 |
-no life safety issue -limited valued or no property loss -no impact to local economy and/or -no effect on general living conditions. |
| Minor | 2 |
-potential risk to life safety of occupants |
| Moderate> | 3 |
-threat to life safety of occupants |
| Major | 4 |
-potential for a large loss of life |
| Catastrophic | 5 |
-significant loss of life |
The overall risk assessment is completed by assigning probability and consequence levels to potential adverse events or scenarios due to fire and combining the two to arrive at an overall risk level. The Risk Analysis Matrix is an analytical tool that can be used for this purpose. The highest overall risk levels are located in the bottom right corner of the matrix and the lowest levels are at the top left corner. This tool also allows the analyst to rank and classify the scenarios for the purpose of prioritizing risk reduction measures.
| RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX-Level of Risk (Priority Level) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Probability |
Consequence | ||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
1 |
L (L1) |
L (L1) |
M (L2) |
H (L3) |
H (L3) |
|
2 |
L (L1) |
L (L1) |
M (L2) |
H (L3) |
E (L4) |
|
3 |
L (L1) |
M (L2) |
H (L3) |
E (L4) |
E (L4) |
|
4 |
M (L2) |
H (L3) |
H (L3) |
E (L4) |
E (L4) |
|
5 |
H (L3) |
H (L3) |
E (L4) |
E (L4) |
E (L4) |
The risk and priority levels are defined as follows:
The types of fire risks that a community may be expected to encounter are influenced by its defining characteristics. For example, a “bedroom community” presents a different set of circumstances over one that is characterized as an “industrial town”. Communities that are distinguished by older buildings will pose a different set of concerns over those that are comprised of newer buildings constructed to modern building codes. Communities populated by a high percentage of senior citizens present a different challenge over ones with a younger population base.
Assessing fire risk should begin with a review of all available and relevant information that defines and characterizes your community. Eight key factors have been identified that contribute to the community’s inherent characteristics and circumstances. These factors influence events that shape potential fire scenarios along with the severity of their outcomes:
The review should consider the factors independently as well as in combination with each other to identify potential fire related concerns within the community.
It is important to develop a community property stock profile to establish a detailed inventory of potential property related risks. This involves determining building stock totals based on occupancy classification as well as other non-building properties that could pose a risk to the community. The Ontario Building Code (OBC) categorizes buildings under the following major occupancy classifications, each of which has inherent hazards that distinguish it from the others.
An assembly occupancy is defined as one that is used by a gathering of
persons for civic, political, travel, religious, social, educational,
recreational or like purposes or for the consumption of food or drink.
Assembly buildings are often occupied by a large number of people and may
contain high quantities of combustible furnishings and decorations.
Occupants are generally unfamiliar with the building’s exit locations and may
not know how to react in the event of an emergency. Low light conditions
are inherent to some of these occupancies and can contribute to occupant
confusion during an evacuation. Numerous examples exist of disastrous
events that have occurred throughout the world, resulting in multiple fire
fatalities in these occupancies. Therefore, these facilities warrant
special attention. Accordingly, it is paramount to ensure that maximum
occupant load limits are not exceeded, detection is available, an approved fire
safety plan is in place and adequate unobstructed exits/means of egress are
readily available.
A care or detention occupancy means the occupancy or use of a building or part thereof by persons who
(a) are dependent on others to release security devices to
permit egress,
(b) receive special care and treatment, or
(c) receive
supervisory care.
In addition to the presence of vulnerable occupants, these occupancies may contain quantities of various flammable/combustible liquids and gases, oxidizers and combustible furnishings that will impact the intensity of the fire if one should occur. The evacuation or relocation of patients, residents or inmates to an area of refuge during an emergency poses additional challenges in these facilities. It is essential to ensure that properly trained staff is available and prepared to quickly respond according to the facility’s approved fire safety plan.
A residential occupancy is defined as one that is used by persons for whom
sleeping accommodation is provided but who are not harboured or detained to
receive medical care or treatment or are not involuntarily detained.
In Ontario, residential occupancies account for 70% of all structural fires and
90% of all fire deaths. Residential units that are located in multi-unit
buildings, including secondary units in a house, pose additional risks due to
egress and firefighting accessibility challenges.
A business and personal services occupancy is defined as one that is used for
the transaction of business or the rendering or receiving of professional or
personal services.
Many office buildings are occupied by a large
number of people during business hours and contain high combustible content in
the form of furnishings, paper, books, computers and other office
equipment/supplies. Those that are located in a highrise building pose
additional risks due to egress and firefighting challenges.
A mercantile occupancy is defined as one that is used for the displaying or
selling of retail goods, wares or merchandise.
Larger mercantile
occupancies such as department stores are generally occupied by a large number
of people and contain high quantities of combustibles in the form of
merchandise, furnishings and decorations. Customers may be unfamiliar with
the building’s exit locations and not know how to react in the event of an
emergency. Additional hazards will be present in “big box” type stores
that sell and store large volumes of combustible materials in bulk. These
stores generally have similar properties to industrial warehouses with the
additional hazard of higher number of occupants.
An industrial occupancy is defined as one for the assembling, fabricating,
manufacturing, processing, repairing or storing of goods and materials.
This category is divided into low hazard (F3), medium hazard (F2) and high
hazard (F1) based on its combustible content and the potential for rapid fire
growth.
These occupancies constitute a special fire hazard due to
their high levels of combustible, flammable or explosive content and the
possible presence of oxidizing chemicals and gases. Processing and other
activities that involve various ignition sources often occur in these
occupancies. The lack of security during non-operational hours also makes
them susceptible to incendiary type fires. Industrial fires generally
involve large quantities of combustible materials and potentially result in
large financial losses (e.g. building, contents) and significant damage to the
community’s environment and economic well-being (e.g. loss of jobs).
In addition to gathering information on building related risks, attention should also be given to other property types, particularly those that contain large quantities of combustible materials. Propane storage facilities, outdoor tire storage yards, grasslands/forests, plastic recycling depots are examples of properties that could severely impact a community and its environment if involved in a fire. Major highways and railway lines used to transport high volumes of traffic and perhaps large quantities of hazardous chemicals also warrant serious consideration.
Taller structures pose unique fire safety concerns and have the potential for significantly greater fire losses over shorter buildings of the same area due to its inherent physical features. The following challenges attributed to taller buildings demonstrate the important role sprinkler protection plays within these structures.
Depending on the occupancy type, some of the aforementioned challenges
associated with taller buildings may also be applicable to a sprawling lowrise
complex (i.e. higher population, longer evacuation times, communication, higher
fuel loads). Large industrial plants/warehouses, greenhouses, farm
buildings, department stores/malls, commercial complexes, and care/detention
occupancies, to list a few, are often associated with this type of building
configuration.
The large areas associated with these buildings pose a
different type of challenge for firefighting/rescue operations and occupant
evacuation. In this case, high horizontal travel distances to gain access
to and evacuate the building are a concern similar to the vertical travel
distances associated with highrises. Further, more complicated building
layouts can be found in large complexes due to the space allowance for intricate
corridor systems, a large number of interior rooms/other spaces, and multiple
tenancies/ occupancies.
Even large industrial warehouses that are
generally constructed as open concept space can present a concern. The
presence of large quantities of combustible piled storage may present a physical
hindrance to gaining interior access for firefighting/rescue operations as well
as contributing to a significant fuel load.
A review of the community’s building inventory should be conducted to identify those buildings that may pose a risk due to its age and construction. Generally, older buildings pose a different set of problems than those that have been built to modern construction standards.
Prior to the adoption of the OBC in 1975 and the Ontario Fire Code (OFC) in
1981, there were many inconsistencies with how new buildings were constructed
and how existing buildings were maintained. Municipalities used their own
bylaws to regulate building construction or simply relied on the expertise of
architects, engineers and contractors to design and construct safe buildings.
After the introduction of the National Building Code (NBC) some municipalities
adopted it either in whole or in part. The Office of the Fire Marshal
(OFM) also administered construction standards for certain occupancy types
between 1958 and 1975.
Current building and fire codes have been
developed to provide a uniform and higher level of protection for the Province.
Modern codes contain building construction and maintenance standards and
requirements that address various fire safety issues including:
With the introduction of retrofit requirements being first enacted in the OFC beginning in 1983, various types of occupancies including assembly; boarding, lodging and rooming houses; health care facilities; multi-unit residential; two unit residential; and hotel establishments were required to be upgraded to a minimum acceptable level of life safety, over a period of time. Hence a review of the community’s involvement with a retrofit inspection program or specifically a building’s retrofit history in addition to its original construction date, is an important consideration.
Historically, residential occupancies have accounted for approximately 70% of all structural fires and 90% of total fire deaths within Ontario. Single-family dwellings (detached, semi-detached and attached homes) combined with multi-unit dwellings (lowrise and highrise buildings) account for over 85% of total residential fires and deaths. Due to the significant fire losses attributed to this occupancy class, the following focuses on construction features relevant to older and newer residential multi-unit buildings and single-family dwellings that may contribute to some of these losses.
The OBC and OFC classify residential lowrise buildings as those that are up
to and including six storeys in building height, whereas highrise buildings are
as those that exceed six storeys. However, Statistics Canada
classifies residential lowrise buildings as being less than 5 storeys in height
and highrise buildings as 5 storeys or higher. Due to the availability of
Statistics Canada building stock data for these classifications, their
definition of highrise and lowrise buildings will be used for the purposes of
this Section only.
A comparison of Ontario fire loss statistics between
residential lowrise and highrise buildings indicate that lowrises have a
significantly higher fire loss rate.
Height |
Fire Rate per 100,000 Units |
Fire Injury Rate per 100,000 Units |
Fire Death Rate per 100,000 Units |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Lowrise |
177 |
27.3 |
3.0 |
|
Highrise |
101 |
13.8 |
1.1 |
Notes:
The 5-year average shows that lowrise building fire loss rates are 75% higher
for fires, 98% higher for injuries and 173% higher for deaths, when compared to
highrise buildings.
There are many factors that
contribute to this disparity, one of which may be the difference in construction
standards between the two. Despite higher residential lowrise
fire loss rates, code writers generally perceive highrise buildings to be the
greater risk due to their unique fire safety challenges, as previously
discussed. These inherent features can potentially lead to
significantly more severe fire losses than other types of residential buildings.As a result, both the OBC and OFC contain more stringent construction and
retrofit requirements for highrise buildings.
The difference in age between Ontario’s
lowrise and highrise building stock is another factor that should be taken into
consideration. A review of residential multi-unit dwellings
by age of construction reveals that lowrise buildings are generally older than
highrise buildings. As of 2001, almost 25% of the province’s
lowrise (less than 5 storeys) dwelling units were constructed “pre-1946”, when
little if any building construction standards existed. In
comparison, only 2.6% of highrise dwelling units were constructed during this
period. Conversely, almost 90% of total highrise dwelling
units were constructed after 1960, when building code legislation was at least
in its early developmental stages. In comparison, only 55% of
current lowrise dwelling units were constructed during this period.
|
Height |
1920 & Prior |
1945 & Prior |
1960 & Prior |
1970 & Prior |
1980 & Prior |
1990 & Prior |
2001 & Prior |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lowrise |
11.3% |
24.2% |
45.1% |
63.1% |
79.1% |
92.4% |
100% |
|
Highrise |
0.8% |
2.6% |
11.2% |
38.7% |
69.8% |
89.2% |
100% |
Source: 2001 Statistics
Although OFC retrofit requirements bring older residential multi-unit
buildings up to an acceptable level of life safety, they are still less
stringent than current OBC construction standards from a property protection
perspective.
Finally, it is important to note that building
construction and age are not the only factors attributed to the significant
differences in fire loss rates between residential lowrise and highrise
buildings. The other components that make up the Fire Risk sub-model must
also be evaluated to determine how they individually impact fire losses with
respect to these building configurations.
Fires in single-family dwellings are responsible for nearly two thirds of all
residential fires. Generally, detached homes account for 80% of all
single-family dwelling fires, with semi-detached and attached homes evenly
contributing to the remaining 20%.
The following table indicates that
the overall fire loss rate for single-family dwellings generally fall in between
residential lowrise and highrise buildings. The differences in fire rate
between the three single-family dwelling types are not significant.
However, it is noteworthy that the fire injury and death rates in attached homes
are significantly higher than those for detached homes.
| Height |
Fire Rate per 100,000 Units |
Fire Injury Rate per 100,000 Units |
Fire Death Rate per 100,000 Units |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Detached |
139 |
10.4 |
1.8 |
|
Semi-Detached |
151 |
19.3 |
0.4 |
|
Attached |
142 |
17.2 |
2.6 |
| SFD-Overall |
140 |
11.9 |
1.8 |
Notes:
Changes in construction features over the years have resulted in improvements
from a fire safety perspective. With the introduction of the OBC in 1975,
one of the significant changes was the requirement for newly constructed
single-family dwellings to be equipped with hard-wired smoke alarms outside all
sleeping areas. Smoke alarm requirements have become even more stringent
with the OBC requiring them to be installed on all storeys and interconnected
with each other. The OFC now requires homeowners to ensure that working
smoke alarms are installed on each storey of the home and outside all sleeping
areas.
A fire safety concern associated with older single-family
residential buildings is the use of balloon frame construction, which was a
common framing technique used back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
This method involved the use of long continuous wood studs to erect walls from
the foundation up to the roofline, which created long, concealed, and
unobstructed vertical channels. Floor joists were subsequently hung from
the wall studs. This type of construction permits fire and smoke to spread
rapidly from the lower floors up to the roof level, which also increases the
risk of structural collapse. Modern platform framing construction involves
constructing wall and floor systems one level at a time. It is an
improvement over balloon construction as it provides a horizontal barrier to
ensure concealed wall voids do not extend for more than one floor.
In
the older downtown sections of some municipalities it is common to find long
rows of attached residential/commercial buildings constructed with their attic
spaces interconnected with each other. These common attic spaces are often
not adequately fire separated from the floor area below within the respective
buildings. Hence, this type of configuration allows a fire that originates
in one building to rapidly spread to the adjacent ones and potentially impacting
an entire city block. Current building code regulations address this
concern by requiring the construction of a firewall or party wall between
attached buildings to provide a continuous vertical separation from the
foundation footings up to at least the underside of the roof deck.
The interior walls and ceilings in older homes are often finished with
combustible materials such as wood paneling and plastic acoustic ceiling tiles.
These contribute to rapid horizontal and vertical fire spread and can be a major
factor contributing to flashover and the speed with which exit pathways become
unusable. The use of drywall for interior wall and ceiling construction is
more common in newer construction. Although acoustic ceiling tiles are
still found in many newer homes, particularly in finished basements, many
current manufacturers incorporate fire retardant features into these products.
Other fire safety improvements associated with current building
construction practices include the use of flame retardant chemicals on cellulose
insulation, more stringent chimney construction standards, and improved
electrical wiring systems to support the electrical loads of modern appliances.
The following table provides a summary of Ontario’s single-family dwellings
based on period of construction. The age of detached and semi-detached
dwellings are fairly similar, with 19.2% of detached and 23.7% of attached
dwellings constructed “pre-1946”, when little if any building construction
standards existed. Attached dwellings are comparatively newer as the
majority of them were constructed after 1980, with only 5.2% constructed
“pre-1946”.
|
Height |
1920 & Prior |
1945 & Prior |
1960 & Prior |
1970 & Prior |
1980 & Prior |
1990 & Prior |
2001 & Prior |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Detached Dwellings |
9.9% |
19.2% |
38.8% |
52.2% |
67% |
85.3% |
100% |
|
Semi-Detached |
12.2% |
23.7% |
35.8% |
50.9% |
74.1% |
84.7% |
100% |
|
Attached Dwellings |
3.1% |
5.2% |
9.8% |
21.7% |
48.4% |
70.9% |
100% |
Source: 2001 Statistics Canada Census
High building density within the community, such as those that are typically
found in older downtown sections, and areas where there has been “infill
construction” are particularly at risk to exposure fires involving multiple
buildings due to their close proximity to each other. Further, the limited
distances between buildings may hinder fire department access, as only the
side(s) of the buildings facing streets may be accessible by firefighting
apparatus.
An exposure fire is one in which a fire originating in
the building creates an external fire hazard to neighbouring structures by
exposing them to heat and flames. Heat can be transferred by radiation and
convection through wall openings, direct flame impingement or flying embers.
The smaller the separation distance between buildings, the higher is the
potential risk for an exposure fire. Past experience has demonstrated that
exposure fires can occur despite separation distances of up to 30 m from the
exposing fire.
As these are existing structures, there is very
little that can be done with respect to physically increasing the separation
distances between them. However, an understanding of the factors that
influence the severity of an exposure fire may assist with identifying
appropriate measures that can mitigate its impact if one should occur.
With respect to the originating or exposing building fire, these factors
include:
Some of the means of providing building protection to mitigate the effects of exposure fires include:
Different demographic groups can pose unique fire safety challenges. Community population and population shifts throughout the day or year will also introduce varying demand for fire protection services. Developing a community demographic profile is essential to gaining insight on the population being protected. Demographic information to be identified include:
Establishing a population profile based on age distribution can assist in
identifying the extent of vulnerable residents within a community.
The risk of fire deaths associated with a particular age segment can be
determined by calculating and comparing the fire death rates for various age
segments associated with a particular location.
The following chart compares the death rate by age in Ontario over a 5-year
period.
Chart 1: Ontario Fire Death Rate by Age
As identified in the chart, at the age category 50 to 64, the fire death rate
begins to climb above the overall population’s risk level of 8.4 deaths per
million population and continues to rise exponentially to a rate of 33.3 at age
85 and over.
The above data can be refined by determining each age
category’s “Fire Death Risk Index” (FDRI). This index is calculated by
dividing the death rate for each age segment by the overall death rate of the
entire population. An FDRI for an age group that is above 1.0 indicates
that they are riskier than average and conversely, one that is below 1.0
indicates that they are below average risk.
The following chart
compares the FDRI by Age in Ontario over a 5-year period.
Chart 2: Ontario Fire Death Risk Index by Age
Similar to the previous chart, at the age category 50 to 64, the fire death risk begins to rise above the overall risk, ascending exponentially to a risk level that is 4 times higher than the per capita rate at age 85 and over. This method provides a simpler way of comparing risk levels between age segments.
One of the most significant demographic trends in Canada today is the aging
of the general population. In 2001, one in eight Canadians was aged 65
years or over. By 2026, one in every five Canadians will have reached age
65. The reasons for this trend are complex but include factors such as the
impact of the "baby boomer" generation and increases in life expectancy due to
medical advances.
As seen in the above statistics, older adults
represent one of the highest fire risk target groups in Ontario. The aging
process is linked to the decline in an individual’s physical and cognitive
ability, which reduces their reaction time during a fire emergency. The
effects of aging may often be compounded due to illness, disabilities,
hearing/sight impairments, and the effects of prescription medication.
Physiologically, they are more susceptible to injury and death when exposed to
fire or smoke. All of these factors result in the decreased likelihood
that an older adult will survive a fire if involved in one.
Between 2000 and 2004 the leading causes of senior (aged 65 and over) fire
deaths were attributed to “open flame tools/smoker’s articles” and “cooking
equipment”. These ignition sources were responsible for 35% and 10%
respectively of fire deaths for this age category during this period. It
is believed that the decline in cognitive and physical abilities contributes to
the frequency of fire incidents relating to the careless use of these ignition
sources.
Unless measures are taken to mitigate risks associated
with this target group, fire deaths associated with older adults will continue
to increase in proportion to their rapidly growing population.
Fire death statistics for children under the age of 10 indicates that this
group has a relative risk similar to that of the general population.
Despite this, it is generally recognized that children, particularly those that
are under the age of 5, are one of the most vulnerable groups within the general
population. This is because they are dependent on adults for their safety
due to their undeveloped cognitive and physical abilities and general lack of
maturity. They are unable to recognize a hazardous situation and take the
necessary actions to escape on their own. Physiologically, they are more
susceptible to injury and death when exposed to fire or smoke.
It is
also recognized that children are a risk with respect to initiating fires.
Younger children are naturally curious and will often touch and amuse themselves
with items that are within their reach. This includes playing with
ignition sources such as matches, lighters, candles, stoves and fireworks,
without understanding the consequences. Between 2000 and 2004, “Open flame
tools/smoker’s articles” were determined to be responsible for 28% of fire
deaths related to children under the age of 10. Incendiary fire incidents
are often linked to older children. It is estimated that over 50% of
incendiary fires investigated by the OFM are motivated by mischief or vandalism
and started by young people.
The population of the community can vary significantly throughout the year,
which can impact the demand for fire protection services. A tourist or
cottage community that attracts many vacationers during the summer will have
inflated populations during this period. Some communities may host large
annual events that may draw a sudden influx of visitors for a short period of
time. In contrast, university/college towns may have a higher population
base during the school months than during the summer months.
The
population within the community may also vary significantly throughout the day
due to its residential and employment characteristics. One that is
characterized as a “bedroom community”, in which the vast majority of the
residents leave town to go to work, will have a reduced population level during
the daytime as compared to the evenings. In contrast, an “industrial town”
that employs a high number of people during daytime work hours but is home to
only a few during the evening hours, will have the opposite effect.
Determining the extent and location of vulnerable and non-ambulatory occupants within the community should be given a high priority. Occupants with vulnerabilities due to age related limitations were discussed earlier. However, it is also recognized that there are occupants with vulnerabilities associated with physical/cognitive limitations, disabilities, drug or alcohol use, that require evacuation assistance in the event of a fire emergency. Special consideration should be given to identifying locations such as hospitals, senior’s apartments, group homes, rooming houses, residential care, long-term care homes, and children’s daycares and student dormitories.
Ontario is an ethnically diverse province with 54% of the population
reporting origins other than British, French or Canadian. A 1996 Canadian
Heritage Multiculturalism report identified 15 different languages, other than
English and French, that are commonly spoken in Ontario homes.
This language diversity issue can present challenges with respect to effectively
providing public education information and programs to the community through the
media, written materials, telephone inquiries and seminars. A review of
the community’s ethnic profile is necessary to determine whether language
barriers to public education exist. If so, it will be necessary to develop
communication strategies to ensure public safety messages are effectively passed
on to the target audience.
The “2005-2006 Ontario Stovetop Fire Survey” conducted by the OFM on cooking
fires revealed that the stovetop fire incident rate in subsidized residential
dwellings was three times higher than non-subsidized dwellings. This
finding suggests that there is a correlation between income levels and fire
risk.
In Ontario, 14.5% of the population earn below Statistics
Canada’s “Low Income Cut-Off After Tax” measure, which is a widely accepted
poverty benchmark. In the U.S., the study of socioeconomic factors is
recognized as being among the best-known predictors of fire rates at the
community level. In particular, the 1997 Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) report, “Socioeconomic Factors and the Incidence of Fire” and the
1989 NFPA Journal article, “How Being Poor Affects Fire Risk” have shown that
there is a close link between income levels and fire risk. These reports
demonstrate this relationship by identifying the following factors:
The geography, topography, and transportation infrastructure that exist within the community can impact the fire department’s ability to promptly respond to an emergency. Areas that are prone to severe weather conditions can further compound any concerns. These need to be evaluated to identify what factors can potentially impede responses to various locations so that measures can be taken to address these obstacles. The goal is to ensure that the fire department is capable of responding to an emergency anywhere within the community at anytime within a reasonable time.
Consideration needs to be given to the road conditions and private property access routes within the community. Are they properly maintained and accessible throughout the year? Are they wide enough and constructed well enough to support the width and weight of a fire department vehicle? How are “unassumed” roads within new residential subdivisions, that are in poor condition and obstructed by construction vehicles/materials, dealt with? Are there railway crossings and drawbridges along response routes that can potentially result in lengthy delays? Which roads have reduced lanes or are closed due to construction? How will severe weather, particularly during the winter season, impact these travel routes?
Variations in traffic patterns, particularly in an urban community will impact response times. Is the community prone to traffic congestion during the morning and afternoon rush hour periods? How do traffic conditions vary during the course of the year due to weather, road construction or population fluctuations? A review of normal traffic patterns and street design can reveal strategic information on what are the most efficient routes to take during these peak demand periods.
The natural geography and topography inherent to the community may impact
response times to certain areas of the population. How would the terrain
be characterized within the community? Are there any difficult to access
areas such as those located on hilly or low-lying flood susceptible terrains?
Are there any remote properties that are isolated by a watercourse (i.e.
islands) or forests/wildland? Consideration must be given to these
secluded and potentially difficult to access areas to ensure that adequate
resources are in place to protect them.
A historical review of the number and types of fire losses that have occurred
over the past number of years can highlight the risks, trends and patterns that
have been prevalent within the community.
The review should
include data such as the number of fire incidents, casualties (injuries and
fatalities), and monetary property losses associated with the various reporting
fields within the OFM’s Standard Incident Report and Casualty Report. Some
categories that may be useful for analysis may include losses associated with:
More often than not, a combination of the above categories will yield the
most useful information.
Analyzing this data based on general population
or a specific vulnerable segment of the population can provide more meaningful
results for comparison purposes. For example, annual fire/death/dollar
loss data provides general information on the community. However, this
information is less relevant when compared to statistics from a municipality
that has a vastly different population. If this data is expressed based on
a population rate, this becomes more practical for comparison purposes.
Comparing fire loss rates based on a specific segment of the population can
provide even further insight. Property stock and population data will
assist with this exercise. This type of analysis can form the basis for
establishing the likelihood levels of certain types of events.
|
Rating |
Measure |
|---|---|
|
General |
Annual number of industrial fires |
|
Specific |
Annual industrial fire rate per 100,000 population |
|
More Specific |
Annual industrial fire rate per 1,000 industrial buildings |
|
Rating |
Measure |
|---|---|
|
General |
Annual number of residential senior (age 65+) fire injuries |
|
Specific |
Annual residential senior fire injury rate per 100,000 general population |
|
More Specific |
Annual residential senior fire injury rate per 100,000 senior population |
Determining the nature of the fire problem in the community is the first step
in identifying the most effective remedy. Once established, the
appropriate resources and programs can be specifically targeted to address these
concerns.
The quantity and chemical nature of combustible fuel load within a
compartment in combination with the availability of oxygen/air influences the
rate at which a fire burns and the total amount of energy released. This
in turn establishes the fire’s potential intensity and duration prior to the
fuel being depleted.
In a typical building the fuel
load includes its combustible content, interior finish, floor finish and
structural elements. Generally, it is the combustible content within the
building that creates the fire problem. Typical fuel load found in most
buildings include paper, clothing, furniture, window coverings, office
equipment, wall/floor finishes, decorative items, combustible gases and
flammable/combustible liquid based products. The quantity levels and types
of combustible content will vary based on building occupancy type and its
population.
The burning rate of a given fuel is dependent on its
chemical makeup and physical geometry. In general, petrochemical based
products such as those manufactured from plastics and flammable/combustible
liquids release heat at a higher rate than cellulosic materials such as wood,
paper, cotton, and fabric. Petrochemical based products also generate more
toxic and smokier combustion products. The physical geometry of the fuel
based on its surface area to mass ratio will influence how well it burns.
Although all buildings contain a fuel load in one form or another, of
particular concern are those that store or manufacture large quantities of
combustible products that emit toxic combustion products when ignited.
Examples are industrial properties such as waste transfer/recycling facilities,
plastic storage warehouses, and manufacturers of flammable/combustible liquids
based products. Large fires involving these facilities can result in
significant impact to the local environment.
Buildings with
exceptionally high fuel content are not limited to industrial occupancies.
Mercantile occupancies such as malls and “big box” warehouse type stores carry
significant quantities of combustible merchandise. Assembly occupancies
such as nightclubs and bars can have a significant amount of combustible
furniture, decorative materials on walls/ceilings and alcohol (flammable liquid)
within a relatively small area. Office buildings are generally associated
with considerable fuel loads in the form of combustible furniture, office
equipment and supplies.
In general, buildings with higher fuel loads are
at greater risk due to the increased opportunity for ignition and higher
potential for a more severe fire. Providing sprinkler protection is an
effective means of mitigating the effects of fire in these locations.
For analysis purposes, the community being assessed can be defined as the
municipality in its entirety or as a particular segment of it that distinguishes
it from other parts. For smaller municipalities, it may be sufficient to
simply define the community based on town boundaries. For larger
municipalities, it may be appropriate to subdivide it into separate and distinct
components to permit a more detailed analysis. For example, it may be
convenient to subdivide a municipality based on residential subdivision,
downtown sections, industrial park, and a rural area. Hence, the first
step in conducting a fire risk analysis is to identify and define the
community(s) being analyzed.
The second step involves assessing
the community(ies) based on the eight risk factors and compiling a list of
potential fire risk concerns associated with these. The following sample
Community Fire Risk Profile is provided to illustrate this process for a
community that has been defined based on its municipal boundaries.
| Risk Factors | Concerns |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The third step involves reviewing and analyzing the individual concerns
independently or in combination with others to develop potential fire risk
scenarios. For example, a risk factor involving the presence of a
residential highrise building creates the simple risk scenario of “a fire
originating in a residential highrise building”. However, there may be
situations where it would be appropriate to combine two or more risk factors to
accurately reflect an existing condition. Expanding on this example, the
presence of a residential highrise building that is primarily occupied by
non-English speaking senior citizens and does not meet retrofit requirements,
introduces additional concerns. This produces a more complex scenario that
is riskier than the original one. The ability to combine individual
factors to generate these multi-risk scenarios requires one to have in-depth
local knowledge on how these issues interact with each other.
The
fourth step involves assessing and assigning probability and consequence levels
to each of the potential fire risk scenarios. Guidance on establishing
these levels was previously discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
The fifth
step involves applying a Risk Analysis Matrix to each of the potential fire risk
scenarios to determine overall risk for the purposes of prioritizing management
decisions. Guidance on the use of this tool was previously discussed in
Section 2.4.
The following sample scenarios are provided to illustrate
the application of the Risk Analysis Matrix:
|
Fire Risk Scenario |
Prob. Level |
Conseq. Level |
Overall Risk Level |
Priority Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4 |
1 |
Moderate |
L2 |
|
3 |
4 |
Extreme |
L4 |
|
2 |
4 |
High |
L3 |
Note: The assigned probability/consequence levels for the above sample scenarios are provided for illustration purposes only. These are subjective measures that can vary based on individual circumstances surrounding a community.
Assessing a community to determine its inherent fire risks is a fundamental
exercise for establishing the types of scenarios that may be encountered.
The outcomes derived by the exercise serve as the basis for formulating and
prioritizing fire risk management decisions to reduce the likelihood and adverse
impact of these events.
In summary, assessing the fire risk
within a community consists of:
The following chart summarizes how the Fire Risk Sub-Model fits into the
Comprehensive Fire Safety Effectiveness Model.
Chart 3: Fire Risk Sub-Model
|
||||||||||||||||||
