Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview of studies on RP and evacuation

From: Risk perception in fire evacuation behavior revisited: definitions, related concepts, and empirical evidence

Ref. Rel. 3 Scenario N Study population Transfer to building fires possible? 2 Qual./Quan. Control group Data Method Measure of RP Theory Factors affecting RP RP related to evacuation 3
Kuligowski and Mileti (2009) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 803 WTC occupants1 yes Quan. no Retro-spective   1 item (yes/no): “During the time when you first became aware that something had happened and when you first entered the stairwell or elevator to leave did you believe that other people were in danger of being killed?” PADM Environmental cues, floor level, obtained information, No direct effect on evacuation delay (beta ≈ 0 for both towers); weak effect on information seeking behavior ( beta ≈ 0.15) in one tower, pre-evacuation actions were associated with higher perceived risk (beta ≈ 0.23 vs. beta ≈ 0.08).
Day et al. (2013) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 240 WTC occupants5 yes Quan. no Retro-spective Interview 7 point Likert scale (“How much at risk did you feel”) - Number of cues, quality of cues, distance to impact High perceived risk predicted early responders (Beta = .36; OR = 1.44) Low perceived risk was not a predictor of delayed evacuation
Kuligowski (2011) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 252 WTC occupants5 yes Qual. no Retro-spective Interview 7 point Likert scale PADM Previous experience, hyper vigilance, cue intensity, cue identification Perceived risk predicted evacuation decision
Sherman et al. (2011) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 1139 WTC occupants yes Quan. no Retro-spective Question-naire 1 item asking “How serious did you think the situation was at first?” on a 4 point Likert scale - female, member of port authority NY/NJ, personal background variables; evacu-atingfromWTC1 (vs WTC2), more Environmental Cues, more unusual Events (context variables), lower education, longer tenure in the towers, more knowledge, more emergency preparedness lower perceived risk:
- less information seeking
- more pre-evacuation actions
- longer pre-evacuation delays (beta = −.25)
Gershon et al. (2007) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 50 WTC occupants yes Qual. no Retro-spective In-depth Interviews (n = 30) or focus groups (n = 20) Coding of qualitative interviews - - Yes, emergent perception of risk formed by sensory cues facilitated evacuation decisions (but not the process of evacuation)
Gershon et al. (2012) 3 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 1444 WTC occupants yes Qual. Comparison to WTC occupants who were not in the building at the incident Retro-spective Questionnaire Several items (number not specified), including seriousness of the situation, and concerns that the building would collapse Behavioral Diagnostic Model - Yes, 70% stated that they evacuated because they appraised the situation as dangerous. Occupants who thought the situation was serious evacuated with less delay (OR = 3.78) and faster (OR = 1.80).
Caroly et al. (2013) 3 Tunnel accident and fire 11 tunnel fires Tunnel users With limitations Qual. no Retro-spective Review of reports, video footage, media reports Not reported Danger control model Visibility of cues Yes
Averill et al. (2012); Averill et al. (2007) 2 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 400 WTC occupants1 Yes   no Retro-spective Interviews    Seek info, environmental cues  
McConnell et al. (2010) 2 Building evacuation under a terrorist attack 126 WTC occupants5 yes Quan. no Retro-spective Questionnaire 7 point Likert scale - Floor level in tower, WTC1, time (before or during evacuation) -
Jönsson et al. (2012) 2 Elevator evacuation during an unspecified emergency 573 High-rise building occupants Yes, with limitations Quan. no Cross-sectional Hypothetical scenario questionnaire Rating of perceived safety of evacuation routes (two 7 point Likert scale items) - Building floor, evacuation method (elevator vs. staircase) yes
Mbaye and Kouabenan (2013) 1 Accident in chemical/nuclear facility 302 Employees in chemical & nuclear facility With limitations Quan. no Cross-sectional Questionnaire   - locus of control, positivity bias, availability heuristic -
Riad et al. (1999) 1 Hurricane evacuation 777 Residents in hurricane risk regions With limitations Quan. no Retro-spective Interview   - - yes
Brenkert-Smith et al. (2013) 1 Wildfire evacuation 747 Wildland-urban interface (WUI) homeowners in Boulder and Larimer Counties in Colorado, USA Yes, with limitations Quan. No Prospective Questionnaire 2 questions on perceived probability scaled to range from 0 to 100 and Likert scale for 4 variables on perceived consequences Social amplification of risk framework Lot size, Previous experience, social context -
Lindell et al. (2005) 1 Hurricane evacuation 206-407 General population in hurricane area With limitations Quan. no Retro-spective Questionnaire - - - -
Matyas et al. (2011) 1 Hurricane evacuation 448 Tourists With limitations Quan. no Cross-sectional Questionnaire 5 point Likert scale - - Yes (correlated with stated preference)
Horney et al. (2010) 1 Hurricane evacuation 570 General public With limitations Quan. no Retro-spective Interview 3 point scale (low-middle-high) PADM Actual risk, homeownership, no
Martin et al. (2009) 1 Wildfire evacuation 251 Fulltime & seasonal residents With limitations Quan. no Retro-spective Questionnaire 5 point Likert scale PADM Fire experience, subjective knowledge, perceived responsibility Yes, mediated; 38% of variance in perceived risk explained
Siebeneck and Cova (2012) 1 Flood evacuation 196 General population in flood area With limitations Quan. no Retro-spective Questionnaire 5 point Likert scale Threshold model of RP Distance to threat, Time course of events, amount of property damage Not reported
Drabek (2001) 1 Natural disaster 406 Business employees With limitations Qual. no Retro-spective Questionnaire 4 items measuring risk-related behavior and perceived safety Stress–strain perspective Higher perceived risk was associated with lower amount of community disaster planning, warning messages implying that evacuation was mandatory, residing in a mobile home or apartment, working in a more formalized company, working in a younger company, and long-term event or consequences Perceived risk predicted evacuation delay (beta = .145) multiple evacuation (beta = .158)
  1. Note: The content of this table is solely based on the information available in the individual studies and the amount and accuracy of the reported information varies. Ref. = Reference; Rel. = Relevance; N = sample size; Quan. = Quantitative study; Qual. = Qualitative study; WTC = World Trade Center; 1NIST WTC evacuation data base; 2yes, with limitations, no, unclear; 3If yes, describe the relation (e.g. mediated, correlated); 3 1 = planned evacuation from a latent threat, 2 = acute evacuation from an acute threat than building fire, 3 = Fire evacuation from buildings; 4labeled as milling in this study; 5HEED data base; 6 no specification of actual number of participants was given in this paper.
  2. The studies are sorted according to their relevance for RP and evacuation.