 |
©iStockphoto.com/vicnt
|
There is a common belief that people are a problem when emergencies occur and that the best way to deal with those problems is to employ rigid emergency response structures and to withhold information about potential risks. However research from social sciences and studies shows that is not exactly the case, as panic is often based on perception.
The Gantts said “there are no natural disasters” and that events that have natural causes are almost entirely man made. It’s often easy to predict where disasters will occur, but not when they will occur. Often, the difference between those who survive and do not is based on human choice. For human lives to be saved, the thinking needs to be altered through new emergency planning systems to account for human behavior in disasters and emergencies.
The presentation offered several case studies dissecting human reaction in disaster situations, including the 1977 Beverly Hills Supper Club fire that killed 165 people and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In the case of the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, NFPA found found no evidence of panic in the disaster, as employees and other staff members tried to put out the fire and helped assist in the evacuation. On 9/11, 70% of the survivors spoke with someone before trying to evacuate, and on average it took 6 minutes for a survivor to exit.
According to the Gantts, research suggests that actual panic may be induced due to specific environmental situations — specifically perception of immediate great threat, belief of being trapped and a feeling of helplessness. People believe in panic because of their perception and, in turn, it has become a default belief.
They also discussed common disaster behaviors, for example, how people instinctually want to be with and help others. During the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake 31,000 residents aided the search-and-rescue effort. A large number of “walking wounded” offered their assistance following the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013.
These efforts are not without problems, however. “Something like groupthink (is) going to be much more likely in a time/pressure situation like an emergency,” Ron Gantt says. “You can see people so social going with the group even if they think it’s going to get them killed.” This type of thinking can also lead to confusion and inefficiency in response.
The Gantts then detailed “the survival arc,” which breaks down into three “Ds” of denial (risk identification), or looking for confirmation before acting, deliberation (risk assessment – how risk managers calculate risk and how the public calculates it) and decision (risk reduction, or taking action.).
They noted that people do not respond to warnings and alarms as quickly as they need to, believing instead that they need more information. Then, people will assess risk by calculating consequence with the probability of something happening before dread factors in. Finally, the presentation explained how to gain control of a difficult situation through prior training, emergency planning, building effective emergency systems and positioning emergency equipment and signage where it can easily be accessed and seen.
The presenters introduced a different model for emergency and disaster planners to increase safety called behavior-based emergency planning. The system involves a series of training, credible leadership and effective emergency systems to create a more successful and consistent safety program.
