Advertisement

Risk Management: The Relationship Between Perceived Risk Factors of Crowd Disaster and Perceived Safety in Large Buildings

  • Mohammed Alkhadim
  • Kassim Gidado
  • Noel Painting
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Poor risk management within large buildings such as sport stadiums, concert halls, and religious buildings have resulted in crowd disasters in various venues across the world. Within the built environment, safety is considered in two main parts: objective safety (normative and substantive) and subjective safety (perceived). Facilities management within large buildings used by large crowds must involve effective risk management as a key component. Fruin suggested that Force, Information, Space and Time (FIST) are the main factors that influence the occurrence of crowd disaster. It has also been theorised that poor perceived safety alone could result into crowd disaster. By using the FIST model, this paper investigates the relationship between the four critical FIST factors and perceived safety in large buildings. The research chose to use the Holy Mosque in Makkah as a case study. The Holy Mosque is a large building of 356,800 m2 with a maximum capacity of two million users (pilgrims). Data was collected using iPad devices via a self-administered questionnaire distributed to 1940 pilgrims of 62 different nationalities. The results were analysed using SPSS for descriptive analysis and AMOS 22 for Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The findings clearly confirmed that there is a significant relationship between the FIST factors and perceived safety in large buildings. These findings will inform design consultants and facilities managers as they design and/or manage such facilities.

Keywords

Facilities management Risk management Perceived safety Crowd safety Crowd disaster Structural equation modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Alnabulsi H, Drury J (2014) Social identification moderates the effect of crowd density on safety at the Hajj. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:9091–9096.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404953111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awang Z (2015) SEM made simple: a gentle approach to learning structural equation modeling. MPWS Rich PublicationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BIFM (2014) The facilities management professional standardsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booty F (2009) Facilities management handbook, 4th edn. Library of CongressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dickie JF (1995) Major crowd catastrophes. Saf Sci 18:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fruin JJ (1993) The causes and prevention of crowd disasters. Eng Crowd Safety: 1–10Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model: A Multidisciplinary J 6:1–55Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim D, Lee K, Sirgy J (2016) Examining the differential impact of human crowding versus spatial crowding on visitor satisfaction at a festival. J Travel Tourism Mark 33:293–312.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1024914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehta V (2013) The street: a quintessential social public space. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Still GK (2016) Crowd safety and risk analysis. http://www.gkstill.com/ExpertWitness/CrowdDisasters.html
  11. 11.
    Zohrabi M (2013) Mixed method research: instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory Pract Lang Stud 3:254–262Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Alkhadim
    • 1
  • Kassim Gidado
    • 1
  • Noel Painting
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environment and TechnologyUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations