See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313850680

Assessment of fire safety practices in public buildings in western Nigeria

Conference Paper · October 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 2,352

3 authors:

Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke Sina Makanjuola

Federal University of Technology, Akure Federal University of Technology, Akure
207 PUBLICATIONS   354 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ayodeji Aiyetan
Durban University of Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Value Management View project

Sustainable construction practices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke on 20 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COBRA 2009
The Construction and Building Research Conference of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Held at the University of Cape Town, 10-11 September 2009

ISBN 978-1-84219-519-2

© RICS

12 Great George Street

London SW1P 3AD
United Kingdom

www.rics.org/cobra

September 2009
COBRA 2009
The construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
held at the University of Cape Town, 10-11 September 2009

The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform for the dissemination
of original research and new developments within the specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:

Management of the construction process

• Cost and value management

• Building technology
• Legal aspects of construction and procurement
• Public private partnerships
• Health and safety
• Procurement
• Risk management
• Project management

The built asset

• Property investment theory and practice

• Indirect property investment
• Property market forecasting
• Property pricing and appraisal
• Law of property, housing and land use planning
• Urban development
• Planning and property markets
• Financial analysis of the property market and property assets
• The dynamics of residential property markets
• Global comparative analysis of property markets
• Building occupation
• Sustainability and real estate
• Sustainability and environmental law
• Building performance

The property industry

• Information technology
• Innovation in education and training
• Human and organisational aspects of the industry
• Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management
• Professional education and training

Organising Committee

The Organising Committee for the RICS COBRA 2009 Conference consisted of:

Paul Bowen (Chair) University of Cape Town

Ian Jay University of Cape Town
Keith Cattell University of Cape Town
Kathy Michell University of Cape Town
Stephen Brown RICS

Page 5 
 The doctoral students’ session was arranged and conducted by:

Monty Sutrisna University of salford, UK

Les Ruddock University of Salford, UK

The CIB W113 Law and dispute resolution session was aranged and conducted by Paul Chynoweth of the
Univeristy of Salford, UK

Peer review process

All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing process. Referees were
drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from the construction and building research com-
munity. The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the following members of the panel for
their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA.

Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, Turkey

John Boon UNITEC, New Zealand
Richard Burt Auburn University, USA
Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK
Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Peter Edwards RMIT, Australia
Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK
Hemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, Australia
Peter Fenn University of Manchester, UK
Peter Fisher University of Northumbria, UK
Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK
Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK
Theo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
Godfaurd John University of Central Lancashire, UK
Keith Jones University of Greenwich, UK
Mohammed Kishk Robert Gordon’s University, UK
Andrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UK
Esra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UK
John Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UK
Greg Lloyd University of Ulster, UK
S M Lo City University of Hong Kong
Martin Loosemore University of New South Wales, Australia
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK
Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USA
Kathy Michell University of Cape Town, South Africa
Henry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UK
Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK
Matthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Richard Reed Deakin University, Australia
Herbert Robinson London South Bank University, UK
David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa

 Page 6
Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Steve Rowlinson University of Hong Kong
Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa
Melanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK
Ming Sun University of the West of England, UK
Joe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UK
Derek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UK
Basie Verster University of the Free State, South Africa
John Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland
Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia
Francis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Ing Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian Unversity, UK
Andrew Wright De Montfort University, UK
George Zillante University of South Australia
Sam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed papers for the
COBRA session arranged by CIB W113, Law and dispute resolution:

John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK

Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK
Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel
Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK
Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia
Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK
Alice Christudason National University of Singapore
Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK
Philip Chan National University of Singapore
Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong
Ron Craig Loughborough University, UK
Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore
Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK
Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK
Wayne Lord Loughborough University, UK
Frits Meijer Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK
Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK
Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Mark Massyn University of Cape Town, South Africa
Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK
Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA
Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia
Henk Visscher Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Page 7 
RICS COBRA Research Conference, University of Cape Town, 10-11th September 2009.
S A Makanjuola, A O Aiyetan and A E Oke, pp 39-48

Assessment of fire safety practices in public buildings in western

Nigeria
Makanjuola, S. A1, Aiyetan A. O1 and Oke, A. E1
1
Department of Quantity Surveying,
Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
E-mail: maaac2003@yahoo.com; oaiyetan@yahoo.com; emayok@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Fire safety culture and practices has been a thing of neglect in most public buildings in Nigeria and
this has been a contributing factor to incessant fire incidents. This issue has generated a lot of concern
among the public as well as construction professionals. The aim of this research work is to assess the
level of fire safety provisions in public building and the level of fire safety awareness of users and
occupants of public buildings. To achieve this, well structured questionnaires were sent out to users
and occupants of public buildings in the some selected cities of the western part of the country. From
the analysed data, it was discovered that most of the highlighted fire safety equipment are either not
available or where available, they are oftentimes not functional, or that the occupants are not even
aware of their availability, functionality or usage. The level of trainings received by occupants of
building in respect to fire safety, first aid fire fighting and evacuation procedure are found to be low,
lack of effective government policy on administration and implementation of fire code and ignorance
of building designers and professionals are among the militating factors against the integration of fire
safety equipments in public buildings. The study recommends adequate training of building occupant
and effective administration of the existing fire code and regulation should be improved upon, this
will in turn reduce the case of fire incident.

Keywords: Fire safety, fire safety awareness, fire safety practices, public buildings.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
There has been great emphasis on the provision of fire fighting equipment for the fire service offices
in the country, million of money are been spend to train fire-men in fire combat, but little had been
done to look at fire safety practices in the buildings where there is likely to be occurrence of fire. In
most time, fire-fighters are been blamed for fire incident in public building, and all their possible
loopholes seriously explored (Oludare, 2000) but little has been said or explored about the activity of
the other stakeholders in the construction and use of public buildings, who oftentimes responsible for
the causes of fire outbreak.

Fire safety practices is an aspect that have suffered great neglect among designers and users of public
buildings, this may be due to uncared attitudes and ignorance on the part of building owner and users.
Aqua group (1984) stated that loss of property by fire most commonly occur because of ignorance
about the nature of fire and its behaviours, possibly lethal in circumstances that normally appear
perfectly harmless. If a successful campaign is to be conducted against fire and its dreadful
consequences, then the adverse must be fully understood.

Hassan (1999) concluded that the safety of occupants in building should be the main concern for all
professionals bodies involved in both design and construction of buildings. Nevertheless, the design
and safety in buildings will not be enough if adequate preparation is not put in place by the occupant
and users of constructed facilities. It was further reiterated that that the awareness and safety
consciousness is beginning to have effect on the mind of the generality of the public, fire and safety
could not be divorces from each other because once there is fire occurrence, safety of life and property
becomes very essential.
Fire safety practices and awareness is very necessary as it is anonymously said “to be forewarned is to
be fore armed” adequate knowledge of fire, cause, prevention and suppression is very important to all
building occupant, also provision of adequate fire fighting equipment is very important. Coleman
(1982) said that an estimate of the annual bill for fire damage in the UK in 1981 came to over
£350,000,000 in 1980, fire brigade attended over 352 outbreaks, while in the same year, 1035 people
lost their lives and 8770 received injury as a result of fire. In Nigeria, Guardian (2006) reports that
about N900, 000,000,000.00 loses to fire incident were recorded in the country as at 2005 with scores
of live lost in various incidents. This effect of fire makes it necessary to think on how to avoid the
problem rather than coping with it. This research work tend to assess the fire safety practices in public
building, the level of fire safety constructions in public building and the possibility of effective fire
fighting with the available mechanism in place, the level of observation of fire safety precaution
among occupant and the action and reaction of occupants of these buildings in case of fire.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 FIRE
A popular adage says fire is good servant but a bad master; also, it is known to be a good friend but a
better enemy. Hassan (1999) describes fire as chemical reaction of three elements. The rapid
combination of the three elements; Oxygen, Heat and Fuel result in the production of heat and light.
Before fire can occur, the Aqua group (1984) notes that there must be presence of the three basic
element or ingredient of fire, which is referred to as fire’s own Eternal triangle.

Oxygen

Heat Combustible material

(fuel)
Figure 1.1 – Fire Triangle
Source: Aqua Group (1984)

It was further observed that when these three elements exist in the appropriate relationship,
combustion would occur. Cladderton (1995) and Aqua group (1984) pointed out that the removal of
one or more of the fire element or the triangle causes an established fire to be extinguished. Causes of
fire in buildings can be attributed to various factors; it has been observed according to Hassan (1999)
that the causes of fire can be grouped under three headings and they are carelessness, accident and
wilful act or arson.

2.2 CAUSES OF FIRE

Causes of fire in buildings can be attributed to various factors; it has been observed according to
Hassan (1999) that the causes of fire can be grouped under the following headings.
1. Carelessness.
2. Accident.
3. Willful act or arson.
2.2.1 CARELESSNESS
These are causes of fire, which is due to failure of occupant of building to follow necessary safety
precaution against fire outbreaks. The fire from this source starts from a point and continue to spread
around the building if not quickly controlled causes of this source may arise from the following
means:
i) Careless handling of combustible materials
This are causes of fire resulting from carelessness of occupants in building, it includes careless
handling of matches and lighter, indiscriminate disposal of cigarette, stump by smokers, children
playing with matches and other glowing splint. They may throw it in a corner and when it comes in
contact with other element of fire it consequently result in fire outbreak.

2
 ii) Candle sticks
Many people use candle as a substitute for lights in case of power outage, careless handling of candle
stick, placing candle on unstable base, leaving candle unquenched or allowing candle to fall off to a
nearby combustible agent will result in fire outbreak.
iii) Cigarette End
Some smokers are careless in handling cigarette stump by not using the ashtray, throwing them on a
combustible material will result in fire outbreak.
iv) Careless Handling of Inflammable Liquid
This is one of the most common sources of domestic and industrial fire, careless handling of gas pipe,
stops valve e.t.c. using of hot plate indiscriminately and in time of power outage are common sources
of fire outbreak in buildings.
2.2.2 ACCIDENTS
Kwenku (1987) defined accident as an unplanned act, event or occurrence within a sequence of
events, which can cause an unintended personal injury or death, or property damage or both. Ogunjobi
(2002) assert that accident is an unplanned event, which has the capacity to cause injury or damage,
and is attributed to either unsafe act or an unsafe condition. He also stressed that it could result to
damage on plant or product, lo0ss of production, increase cost pollution of the environment and injury
to person, few of which may prove fatal and can lead to death. From the above definition, it can be
said that an accident is anything that happens unexpectedly which result in shock, injury, damage to
life and property. Fires resulting from accidents are fire outbreak that is resulting from emergency or
unlimited source of combustion, fire from this source can be as result of:
i) Thunder Struck
This often arises when there is excess thunderstorm and the building is not well protected with
adequate lighting arrester, causes of fire through this medium is often rare.
ii) Faulty Electrical Equipment and Wiring System
Fault arising from electrical equipment like fan, air-conditioner, lighting fittings and power fittings
often cause fire in buildings, when occupants do not follow all necessary safety precaution in handling
electrical equipments and also faulty wiring system, fire outbreaks is always imminent.
iii) Fire Spread
Fire spreads from adjacent buildings can often affect another and cause outbreak in the building if not
properly checked.
Indiscriminate burning of bushes or debris could cause fire outbreak especially where there is wooden
electric pole. The pole could ignite and burn the 415v power lines, which could cause more harm than
good. Fire also spread in the bushy area during the dry season; therefore, people should be given
orientation that burning of bushes is not a good practice.
2.2.3 Willful Act or Arson
This are causes of fire resulting from willful and intentional acts of occupants or another person. The
Aqua group (1985) purport that nearly one-third of all fire resulting from Arson is difficult to prevent.
They include:
i) Willful Act Due to Fraud: - Due to the fraudulent act of one officer or to the other occupant
in a building, they may willfully ignite fire to the building in other to cover up their fraudulent acts by
destroying valuable documents that may reveal their activity. This may be the major causes of fire in
government own buildings and commercial centers in recent times.
ii) Act of Jealousy / Revenge: This can be due to friction between the owner of a building
and other personality, they may result in willful and deliberate action of the other rival to initiate fire
in the building or the other, this often cause a great damage before they can be brought under control.
iii) Political Motives: Due to many political crises that often arises as a result of friction and
misunderstanding and misrepresentation between various political parties, many of the politicians
often employ the use of political taut and thugs to deal with their opponents, this often result in setting
ablaze the building and property of their opponents, this was the case of various fire outbreaks in 1983
during the NPN and UPN political crisis, the Abacha crisis in 1998 also left many buildings in rubble
as a result of fire attacks.
iv) Religion and Ethnic Crisis: in recent times a country like Nigeria slumps series of
religious and ethnic crisis, example include the Tiv – Jukun crisis in 2002, religious crises in the
north, 2001, 2006; many of this crisis often result in fire attacks on their opponent, thereby causing
fire outbreak in buildings.

3
v) Terrorist Attack: This is most common in the middle east where suicide bombers would
detonate a bomb in a building or other places, the aftermath often result in fire outbreak, the
September 11 attack on the world trade center in New York also result in fire outbreak which later led
to the collapse the twin tower in 2001.

2.3 CLASSES OF FIRE AND THEIR EXTINCTION

Hassan (1999) classified fire into four classes:
Class A is a type of fire involving burning materials e.g. wood, paper, textile and other combustible
materials. Fire in this class are best extinguished by water agent in form of jet or spray, this blanket
(fire blanket) can be used to cover the fire in an enclosure.
Class B fire involves flammable substances e.g. petrol, kerosene, paint and other inflammable
solvents. This class of fire is best extinguished with foam or dry powder, carbon dioxide (CO2).
Class C is a type of fire involving combustible gases or liquidified petroleum gases in form of liquid
or gas leak e.g. propane, butane, methane, e.t.c. This can be extinguished with foam, dry powder, and
CO2 water agent spray to the container.
Class D is a type of fire involving metals e.g. calcium, potassium, aluminium e.t.c. Powdered granite,
limestone, dry sand and dried powdered extinguisher are best used for this class of fire.
Hassan (1999) further reiterates that electrical fire does not constitute a class of fire since any
fire involving electricity may involve one of the classes of fire mentioned above.

2.4 FIRE SAFETY AWARENESS AND MANAGEMENT

Powell Smith and Billington (1991) reiterated that the Part B of schedule 1 to the building regulation
1985 is concerned with means of escape from building and fire spread within and between building
must therefore be constructed so that in the event of fire:
- Occupants are able to reach a place of safety.
- They will resist collapse for a sufficient period to allow evacuation of the occupants or
prevent further rapid fire spread.
- The spared within building is spread to a minimal level.
The first requirement is met by providing an adequate number of exits and protected escape routes,
the second is met by setting reasonable standards of fire resistance for the structural elements of the
building, and the third is met by dividing the building into components and requiring higher standards
of fire resistance of the walls and floor bounding a component.

Many a times, when all this are put in place, the advent of fire also wreck havoc because of ignorance
of occupants and users of buildings. The havoc wreck by fire is often blamed on the inefficiency of
the federal or state fire service; lack of equipments, ineffective communication, lack of water supply
and competent fire fighter was earmarked as the possible problem of fire incident at the domestic
wing of the Muritala Mohammed Airport Lagos on May 10, 2000 (Oludare, 2000). He also attributed
the same cause to the razed down Clean John House on same date. Nevertheless, the author fails to
enumerate what the occupants of the buildings were able to put in place before fire incident went out
of hand. Generally except in case of wilful act or arson, fire usually start from a point and spread to
other part of the building. (Makanjuola, 2000)

The Aqua group (1984) highlighted that the understanding of combustion will help in understanding
how fire spread, and also the major fuel of fire is provided by the building contents, when there is
adequate fire safety awareness, the tendency of fire outbreak can be greatly reduced, or even in case
of fire, the occupant will know what to do in other to escape from the building and also how to initiate
a fire fighting approach before the fire service men will arrive at the scene.

Fire safety awareness can be achieved by employing necessary training of building occupants about
the possible causes of fire, use of fire fighting equipment in the building, the evacuation procedure,
and possible fire attack procedure. All these are part of major activities of fire service department in
the developed country. Websites were developed and monthly e-newsletter is always available to
educate the people about fire occupants training and other relevant information, example is the
monthly e-newsletter of division of fire safety, Vermouth Department of public safety; fire and
evacuation guideline publication of Queens Land Government, department of emergency services;
this publications are aimed at bringing fire and safety awareness to the public. Levitt and Samuelson

4
(1987) reports that the clearest finding of their research is that training and orientation of workers and
managers in safe working practices reduces accidents

The designer must have an understanding of the necessity and problem of management. The manager
in turn must have a detail knowledge and understanding of the building, its services and its
safeguards, to assist not only in the day-to-day running of the building but also to help in any
emergency that may arise.
Fire safety management entails:
- Regular maintenance of the warning system
- Regular maintenance of the direction and escape signs.
- Regular maintenance of fire appliances.
- Maintenance of unimpeded escape routes.
- Training of staff and occupant in evacuation on procedures and
- Training of staff and occupants in first aid fire fighting. (Aqua group 1984).

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research work is a survey into fire safety practices in public building, the study focused on low,
medium and high-rise buildings. The target population for this research are designers, users and
occupant of public buildings, the information were collected from private and Public Corporation and
educational institution

Primary and secondary data were adopted for use in the research work, secondary data were obtained
from textbook, journal, thesis, seminar papers, and new paper, others were from archive and data base
of institution, the Internet were also contracted as well as information downloaded from various
website. The primary data was collected using a well structure Questionnaire administered to various
categories of people within the target population, the response of the respondent form a greater part of
the research. This is in line with the assertion of Allen (1973) that, if the data can not be collected, the
research cannot be conducted. Physical observation of 10 public buildings within the study area was
also carried out.

Out of 90 questionnaires administered, 64 were returned and only 57 (45 non-professionals and 12
construction professionals) were found suitable for analysis representing 63.3%. This is considered
sufficient for the study base on the assertion of Moser and Kalton (1971) that the result of a survey
could be considered as biased and of little significant if the return rate was lower than 30-40%.

Descriptive statistics were used for the questions that are with string variable, frequently and
percentage table were used in presenting the data while data with numeric variables were analyzed
using means score. However, the statistical package for social science (SPSS) software was used in
analysis of the questionnaire, the returned questionnaire was coded in SPSS Data edition and the
descriptive, statistics, mean score and ranking were performed on the data; the result were displayed
in the out put viewer, this were use in discussion of finding from various set of questions.

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.1 Responses of non-construction professionals
4.1.1 Demography and Background information

Table 1: Type of Organization of Respondent.

5
 Frequency Percent
Contracting 3 6.7
Consulting 2 4.4
Business 8 17.8
Computing 3 6.7
Government 14 31.1
Paramilitary 2 4.4
Educational 13 28.9
Total 45 100.0
Table 1 shows that the respondent occupying various public buildings cuts across different
organization with various day to day activity.

Table 2: Type of Building

Frequency Percent
bungalow 7 15.6
1-2 floors 13 28.9
3-4 floors 24 53.3
above 4 floors 1 2.2
Total 45 100.0

Table 2 shows that 53.3% of the respondent uses Building that fall within 3-4 floor, while 28.9%,
15.6% and 2.2% of respondent uses building of 1-2 floor, above 4 floors and bungalow respectively.
The average year of experience of respondent from Table 4 is 11 years meaning that the data is
reliable for analysis. Table 5 shows that 20 respondent which represent 44.4% of the total response
uses general office while 33.3% and 22.2% of the respondent to have single user and 2-3 user type of
accommodation.

Table 3: Academic Qualification

Frequency Percent
HND 23 51.1
B.SC 14 31.1
PGD 3 6.7
M.SC/M.TEC 3 6.7
H
PHD 2 4.4
Total 45 100.0

Table 4: Year of Working Experience

6
 Frequency Percent
1-5yrs 14 31.1
6-10yrs 4 8.9
11-15yrs 19 42.2
16-20yrs 3 6.7
21-25yrs 3 6.7
26-30yrs 2 4.4
Total 45 100.0

Table 5: Type of Accommodation

Frequency Percent
single user 15 33.3
2-3 users 10 22.2
general off 20 44.4
Total 45 100.0

4.1.2 Fire provision, awareness and functionality of equipment

Table 6: Witness of Fire Incident

Frequency Percent
yes 31 68.9
no 14 31.1
Total 45 100.0

Table 6 shows that only 31 of the respondents which represent about 70 percent have witnessed fire
incident.

Table 7: Extent of Damage Cause by Fire Accident

N Sum Mean Rank

destruction of property 39 103 2.64 1
structural defect 39 84 2.15 2
injury 38 81 2.13 3
collapse of building 40 77 1.92 4
death 38 70 1.84 5
permanent disability 38 69 1.82 6
loss of prestige 39 69 1.77 7

7
Table 7 shows the mean score of respondents’ responses to the extent of damage cause by fire
incident, Destruction of property rank highest while structural defect and injury to person ranks
second and third respectively. Loss of prestige and permanent disability were ranked lowest.

Table 8: Availability of Fire Protection Means and Equipment

Equipments N Sum Mean Rank

portable fire extinguisher 43 116 2.70 1
fire alarm 41 103 2.51 2
emergency lighting
41 91 2.22 3
system
fire exits 39 86 2.21 4
fire safety signs 40 84 2.10 5
fire hose reel 41 83 2.02 6
flame detector 41 83 2.02 6
fire buckets 38 75 1.97 8
smoke detector 41 80 1.95 9
sprinkler system 41 75 1.83 10
heat detector 41 75 1.83 10
wet riser 41 75 1.83 10
fire hydrant 40 69 1.72 13
dry riser 41 70 1.71 14
halon gas system 41 68 1.66 15
fusible link door 40 65 1.62 16

Table 8 shows that potable fire extinguisher ranks first among the type of equipment available in the
buildings of various respondent while fire alarm and emergency lighting system ranks second and
third. This implies that in most of the respondent’s buildings, fire extinguisher and fire alarm are
mostly available with a mean score approximately equal to 3. Fire exist, safety signs, fire hose reel
and flame detector rank 4th, 5th and 6th respectively while fusible link door, halon gas system, dry riser
and fire hydrant rank the 16th, 15th, 14th and 13th respectively. This infers that most of these fire safety
equipments are not available in the buildings under consideration.

Table 9 shows that portable fire extinguisher ranks highest in term of functionality of equipments,
while fire alarm and fire exit rank 2nd and 3rd, Halon gas system rank 16th while wet riser, fusible link
door, sprinkler system ranks 15th, 14th and 12th. Looking into the ranking scale, it can be deduced that,
portable fire extinguisher, fire alarm and fire exits are the only functional fire safety equipments in
most of the building with a amen score tending towards 3, while other equipment are mostly not
functional.

Table 9: Functionality of Equipment

8
 Equipments N Sum Mean Rank
portable fire extinguisher 38 113 2.97 1
fire alarm 34 89 2.62 2
fire exits 35 88 2.51 3
emergency lighting
system 35 84 2.40 4
flame detector 34 76 2.24 5
smoke detector 35 74 2.11 6
fire safety signs 35 74 2.11 7
fire hose reel 34 67 1.97 8
heat detector 34 66 1.94 9
fire buckets 34 64 1.88 10
dry riser 34 58 1.71 11
sprinkler system 34 57 1.68 12
fire hydrant 34 57 1.68 12
fusible link door 34 55 1.62 14
wet riser 34 54 1.59 15
halon gas system 34 51 1.50 16

Table 10: Frequency of Attendance of Fire Safety Training

Frequency Percent
frequent 5 11.1
often 5 11.1
rarely 14 31.1
never 21 46.7
Total 45 100.0

Table 10: Frequency of Attendance of First Aid Fire Fighting Training

Frequency Percent
frequent 4 8.9
often 4 8.9
rarely 13 28.9
never 24 53.3
Total 45 100.0

From table 9, 10 and 11, it was discovered that majority of the respondent have never attend any
training in regard to fire safety, first aid fire fighting and evacuation procedure.
Table 11 – Frequency of Attendance of Training on Evacuation Procedure

9
 Frequency Percent
frequent 2 4.4
often 4 8.9
rarely 13 28.9
never 26 57.8
Total 45 100.0

Table 12: Respondent Knowledge of Emergency Call Numbers

Frequency Percent
yes 6 13.3
no 39 86.7
Total 45 100.0
Table 12 shows that 39 out of the 45 respondent, which represent 86.7% of the total responses, did not
know fire emergency call telephone numbers, some does not know that they even exist.

Table 13 – Level of Responsibility

N Sum Mean Rank

building occupants 42 166 3.95 1
fire fighters 43 159 3.70 2
designer 43 154 3.58 5
regulatory body 42 146 3.48 4
service org, PHCN, 42 140 3.33 5
building owner 39 125 3.21 6

When making reference to level of responsibility, table 13 shows that building occupant ranks first
with a mean score of 3.95 followed by fire fighters and designer with a mean score of 3.70 and 3.58
respectively building owner, service organization e.g. PHCN and regulatory body has a mean score of
3.21, 3.33 and 3.48 respectively.

4.3 Responses of construction professionals

4.3.1 Demographic information

Table 14 – Academic Qualifications of Respondent

Frequency Percent
HND 2 16.7
B.SC 1 8.3
PGD 4 33.3
M.SC/M.TECH 4 33.3
PHD 1 8.3
Total 12 100.0

10
Table 14 shows the academic qualification of respondents in that they possess HND and above and
this makes the data from them reliable.
Table 15 – Professional Qualifications of Respondent

Frequency Percent
MNIOB 2 16.7
MNIA 2 16.7
ANIQS 3 25.0
MNSE 2 16.7
OTHERS 3 25.0
Total 12 100.0
Table 15 shows that 75% of the respondents are qualified as construction professionals while the
remaining 25% are from other fields of discipline.

Table 16 – Year of Working Experience

Frequency Percent
6-10yrs 8 66.7
11-15 yrs 2 16.7
16-20 yrs 2 16.7
Total 12 100.0

Table 16 implied that all the respondents have quite reasonable year of professional practice in
various field of construction.

4.3.2 Fire Provision, Awareness and Functionality of Equipments.

Table 17 – Provision of Fire Safety Devices

Frequency Percent
yes 12 100
no - -
Total 12 100
Table 17 shows that the entire professionals normally provide fire safety equipments at the design
stage of construction of building.

Table 18 shows the ranking of the respondents’ frequency of provision of fire safety equipment, fire
alarm, portable fire extinguisher and fire hose reel, ranked first, second and third respectively, this
shows that high preference is given to this equipment by designers of public buildings. Provisions
made fusible link door, wet riser, halon gas system, smoke detector and heat detector are at the lowest
ebb, this shows that the building designer rarely consider these equipments in their design.

From tables 20, it was discovered that the composition of the design team of the various respondent,
architects are the most active with a mean score of 3.83; civil/structural engineer, mechanical/service
engineer and quantity surveyors are also prominent in their involvement with a men score of 3.33.
Builders, fire fighters and estate managers ranked lowest in their involvement in the design team
composition. Table 4.23 shows the factors that are relevant to the integration of fire safety devices in
building design, size of building ranked highest, purpose and complexity of building ranked second
while type occupant ranked lowest. Table 4.24 Shows factors militating against the integration of fire
safety devices and all the identified factors were ranked important except for carelessness of
professional ranked lowest among the factors.

11
 Table 18 – Frequency of Provision of Safety Equipments
Equipments
N Sum Mean Rank
Fire Alarm 12 44 3.67 1
Portable Fire
Extinguishers 12 41 3.42 2
Fire Hose Reel 12 36 3.00 3
Fire Exits 12 34 2.83 4
Sprinkler System 12 33 2.75 5
Emergency
Lighting System 12 33 2.75 6
Fire Safety Signs 12 32 2.67 7
Fire Buckets 12 31 2.58 8
Flame Detector 12 31 2.58 9
Fire Hydrant 12 30 2.50 10
Dry Riser 12 25 2.08 11
Heat Detector 12 24 2.00 12
Smoke Detector 12 24 2.00 13
Halon Gas System 12 21 1.75 14
Wet Riser 12 21 1.75 15
Fusible Link Door 12 17 1.42 16

Table 19 – Composition of Design Team

N Sum Mean Rank
Architects 12 46 3.83 1
Mechanical/Service
Engineer 12 40 3.33 2
Civil/Structural Engineer 12 40 3.33 2
Quantity Surveyor 12 40 3.33 2
Builders 12 32 2.67 5
Firefighters 12 20 1.67 6
Estate Manager 12 16 1.33 7

Table 19 – Factors Affecting Integration of Safety Devices in Building

N Sum Mean Rank
Size of Building 12 46 3.83 1
Purpose of Building 12 44 3.67 2
Complexity of Building 12 44 3.67 2
Type of Building 12 39 3.25 4
Clients' Brief 12 32 2.67 5
Financial Capability of
12 30 2.50 6
Client
Type of Occupant 12 29 2.42 7

12
 Table 20 – Factors Hindering the Integration of Safety Devices in Building

N Sum Mean Rank

Maintenance Cost 12 41 3 1
Initial Cost 12 39 3 1
Government Policy 12 34 3 1
Ignorance of client 12 33 3 1
Ignorance of
Professionals 12 31 3 1
Attitudes of End Users 12 31 3 1
Carelessness of
Design Team 12 26 2 7

4.3 Result from Physical Observation

4.3.1. Availability and functionality of fire safety equipments

Table 21 – Availability and functionality of Fire Safety Equipments

Equipments Availability Functionality Remark on Functionality

portable fire extinguisher 10 7 Mostly not well labeled
fire alarm 6 4 Mostly intact and visible
fire exits 10 2 Mostly locked in chains
emergency lighting
6 3 Faulty Luminaries
system
flame detector 0 0 Not Available

smoke detector 3 3 Mostly new buildings

fire safety signs 6 2 Mostly old and defaced

fire hose reel 7 2 Very Old and Unlabeled
heat detector 0 0 Not Available
fire buckets 2 2 Bucket old and untidy
dry riser 0 0 Not Available
sprinkler system 0 0 Not Available
fire hydrant 0 0 Not Available
fusible link door 0 0 Not Available
wet riser 0 0 Not Available
halon gas system 0 0 Not Available

Table 21 shows that portable fire extinguisher and fire exits are available in all the building visited,
fire alarm emergency lighting system, fire safety sign and fire hose reel are also prominent in some of
the building visited. In term of functionality, fire extinguisher is rated functional in seven of the ten
buildings, in most cases the extinguishers are not well labelled, this may be due to the fact that they
have not been checked in the recent time, in some of the buildings. The fire alarm are intact and the
fire glass still in place, all the building are with fire exits but eight of them are locked in chains as at
the time of visit, this means the quest for security has overtaken the main use which the exit door are
meant for, so in case of fire, escaping from such building will be very difficult. The emergency
lighting systems in some of the buildings visited are have faulty luminaries which implies they may
not be able to give light in time of emergency. Smoke detector were available in three of the building
visited, this buildings were mostly new buildings, fire safety sign and hose reel in most of the

13
buildings are old and not well labelled, fire buckets are old and untidy in the places they are available,
flame detectors, dry riser, sprinkler system, fire hydrant, fusible link door, wet riser and halon gas
system are not available in all the building visited.

4.3.2 Proximity of escape route/exit

In most of the building visited, it was discovered that most of the escape route were blocked with
various obstacle ranging from old furniture to used office cabinets, this obstacle make most of the
escape route to be clumsy. In most cases, the fire exits are locked in chains and door bolt even when
the building is occupied to its full capacity.

4.3.3 Other observations

In most of the building, fire safety signs has been relegated as sometimes when available, they are old
and defaced; label on some fire extinguishers indicates they are overdue for recharging and refilling.
Most of the hose reels available are old and worn out, sometimes without the jet nozzle and no
evidence of water as some of it is without stopcock; label of instruction to user is clearly missing in
most buildings where they are available.

4.4 Result from Oral Interview

Oral interview was conducted for chief fire superintendents in Akure and Ado Ekiti fire service
secretariats, the responses from the duo is very encouraging and similar in most cases, when asked
about the frequency of their office in organisation of fire safety provision, the officers replied that it is
very rare except on special request, and sometimes immediately after a fire incident has been brought
under control, the immediate audience is sensitize on fire safety practices. The constraints highlighted
include lack of finance and uncared attitudes of building occupant and lack of stringent law in support
of activity like that. Organisations and industries also rarely invite the fire office for fire safety related
training except for promotional purpose when a company is out to market a product.

The response of the officers to availability of fire code in the country confirms the existence of a code
in respect of fire safety practices in public, residential and industrial buildings. The officers also
reiterate that the administration of this fire code has suffered a great set back in the time past, this has
led to the neglect of some of the provision of the code, one of which is the issuance of fire certificate
to building owners and occupant in respect to the provisions made for fire safety equipment in the
building, the issuance is only visible now for some industrial building and filling stations. The fire
officers confirm the fact that fire fighters are often blamed for destructions made by fire before they
are brought under control, but reacted that oftentimes, the fire may have been out of hand before they
are invited. Mostly this is due to the fact that the building occupant are never prepared to offer first
aid fire fighting, due to their ignorance in this area, sometimes they aggravate the intensity of the fire
by using wrong extinguisher for a particular fire.

4.5 Historical Data

For the purpose of this research work, a set of historical data were made available from the archive of
the fire statistics in Ekiti State, the record shows the occurrence of fire in the last five years.
Table 22 – Fire Statistics
YEAR NO OF NO OF PROPERTY PROPERTY NO OF
FIRE CASUALTIES LOSS IN SAVE IN LIFE
CALLS NAIRA NAIRA SAVED
(MILLION) (MILLION)
2004 58 23 45.9 86.8 66
2005 52 15 52.5 95.9 54
2006 82 15 51.2 133 73
2007 66 16 68.2 149.3 83
2008 39 14 36 82.4 53
Total 297 83 253.8 547.4 329
Source: Ekiti State Fire Services Secretariat, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State.

Table 22 shows there had been 297 fire calls within the specified period in which 83 casualties were
recorded in the various fire incidents, a total of 329 lives were also saved from the various fire

14
incidents. The fire office records a total loss of property to the tune of N253, 800,000.00 within the
specified period, and in the various effort of the fire men, property worth N547, 400,000.00 were
saved from the ravaging effect of fire in the period under consideration.

4.6 Discussion of Findings

Information collected from questionnaires, physical observation and oral interview were analyzed and
presented. It was discovered that 68.9% of the respondent have witness a fire incidents before and
know the extent of damage such on incident can cause, destruction of properly ranked highest, this is
in line with Guardian (2006) report that over 9 billion Naira loss had been recorded in Nigeria as at
2005. Structural defect ranked second, this corroborates the Daily Sun (2006)’s Report on NIDB
House which was gutted by fire and later results into partial collapse of the building.

Nevertheless, despite the incessant fire incident in the country and possible damage that may occur
thereafter, it was discovered that fire fighting equipment are either not available or where available
they are not functional or that the occupant of the building are not even sure of their availability and
functionality. Portable fire extinguisher and fire alarm took the lead in the ranking of respondents in
regard to available and functional equipments; this is in line with physical observations made by the
researcher in some of the buildings visited in the course of the research. Fire hose reel, oftentimes
when available are mostly not functional, while most of the passive fire fighting equipment like
sprinkler system, fire hydrant, risers, fusible link door and halon gas system are mostly not available
in public buildings occupied by the respondent. This was also confirmed during the physical
observation by the researcher. Apart from portable fire extinguisher and fire alarm system, all other
listed fire equipment fall below average rating of respondent in term of availability and functionality.

It was discovered that majority of the respondent have never attend any training as regard fire. Despite
the fact that there are many of the respondents with technical background, this has little or no effect
on the level of training received by the respondent. This is corroborated by personnel interview report
from the fire office, when they were asked on extent of request from employers, parastatal and
building occupiers, they responded that it only happen on rare occasion except for promotional
purposes when a manufacture want to promote a new fire equipment. This was also because of the
ineffective administration of the available fire code in the country as gathered from the fire office.
This is also in line with the Ayeni (2002)’s conclusion that building occupants in residential buildings
are ignorant of the use of common fire extinguisher, and do not even know what to do in case of fire
outbreak.

Most of the respondents accept being responsible for damages cause in time of fire incident, this was
supported by the analysis where building occupants ranked highest in the level of responsibility. Fire
fighters also has a large portion of responsibility, the building designers, regulatory body e.g. PHCN,
and the building owner has their share of the responsibly, with a mean score of not less than three
(which indicates above average). All the aforementioned are responsible for fire incident in public
building. From the composition of the design team, builders, estates managers and fire fighters
involvement in the design of building is very low, this may as well been the major cause why
provisions made for fire safety equipment is very low and sometimes never available in building
design. This was confirmed from the report of the oral interview which indicates that fire office is
mostly not involved in the design and construction of building. Considering the factors militating
against the integration of fire safety equipment and devices in the design of building, government
policy was part of the factors that ranked highest; other militating factors would have been of non
effect if the government policy on the implementation and administration of the existing fire code has
been stringent. Ignorance of the professionals involved in the deign team also ranked highest among
the militating factors and this is not encouraging, if the designers are ignorant of the active and
passive fire fighting equipment, the integration of such equipment in their design will suffer a great
deal.

15
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
This study has assessed the fire safety practices in public building, from the research; the following
has been discovered;
1. Most of the public building are without adequate fire fighting installation and equipment
2. Oftentimes where thy are available, they are not functional or the occupants are not sure of
their functionality
3. Many occupants of public building have never or rarely receive training on fire safety, first
aid fire fighting and evacuation procedure, so their fire safety awareness tend toward zero,
also professionals involved in the design of building are oftentimes ignorant of the need and
use of the fire protective devices.
4. Whenever there is fire incident, damage is imminent, this ranges from destruction of property
to structural defect, injury to person, collapse of building death, permanent disability and loss
of prestige of the edifice.
5. Every stakeholder in public building is responsible in case of fire incident, the building
occupants, fire fighters, building designer, regulatory body, service organization e.g. PHCN
and building owner alike. In like manner, unavailability of a stringent government policy on
the administration of fire code in the country is a strong factor militating against fire safety
provisions.
6. Majority of the respondents are ignorant of the current emergency call numbers, this indicates
that it will be highly difficult to make contacts to fire-fighters in case of fire.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis of results and findings, the following recommendations are hereby made:
1. Building owners should ensure that their building is well equipped with active and passive
fire fighting equipment.
2. The available equipment should be maintained regularly and adequately so that they will be
effective anytime they are needed.
3. Fire safety training, training on first aid fire fighting and training on evacuation procedure
should be made compulsory for all building occupants and at regular interval
4. Government should revisit the fire code and resuscitate its administration and implementation,
compliance with fire code regulation should be made compulsory for building owner, users
and occupiers of public building and defaulters brought to book
5. Compliance with the fire code and issuance of fire certificate should be approached right from
the inception of the construction and appropriate follow up ensured after completion and
throughout the buildings life span.

REFERENCES
Allen, George R. (1973) The Graduate Student’s Guide to theses and Dissertations: A Practical
Manual for Writing and research. Jossey-Bass, Inc, Publishers, USA
Aqua group (1984). Fire and Building, Granada Publishing, Great Britain.
Ayeni, B. M. (2002). Method of Controlling Fire Hazard in our Environment (A Case Study of Ado-
Ekiti). Unpublished HND Thesis, Federal Polytechnics Ado-Ekiti.
Chadderton, D. V. (1995). Building Services Engineering. E & FN SPOON, London UK.
Coleman, R.J. (1982). Opportunities in fire protection service.
Daily Sun (2006). It was Like Armageddon. The Daily Sun, Thursday, March 23, 1, 4
Hassan, H. (1999). Fire and Safety Management in Buildings, The Professional Builders Journal.
June/July. 32-35
Levitt, E. R. and Samuelson N. M. (1987) Construction Safety Management, McGraw-Hill Book
Company. NY
Makanjuola S. A. (2000) Fire in Tall Buildings: Causes and Prevention. Unpublished Term Paper,
Federal Polytechnics Ado Ekiti, Nigeria
Moser, C. A. and Kalton, C. (1971) Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Heinemann Education
London
Oludare L. (2000). Season of fire, Shelter Watch, May/June, 29-30.
Powel Smith and Billington M.J (1991) The building Regulations: Explained and Illustrated, Eight
edition BSP Professional Books, London, Great Britain.

16
The Guardian (2006). Nigerians Fire Incidents and Safety at Workplace. The Guardian Newspaper,
May 2006.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire 1 on Assessment of Fire Safety Practices in Public Buildings (for

occupiers of public building)
Please thick as appropriate [ ]
Section A
1. Type of organization
(a) Contracting [ ] (b) Consulting [ ] (c) Business [ ]
(d) Government [ ] (e) Military [ ] (f) Paramilitary [ ]
(g) Educational [ ]
2. Academic qualification (a) HND [ ] (b) B.SC [ ] (c) PGD [ ] (d)
M.SC/M.TECH [ ] (e) PHD [ ]
3. Year of working experiences
(a) 1 – 5 yrs [ ] (b) 6 – 10yrs [ ] (c) 11- 15yrs [ ] (d) 16-20yrs [ ] (e) 21 – 25 yrs [ ]
(f)26 – 30 yrs [ ]
5. Type of office building
(a) Bungalow [ ] (b) 1 – 2 floor [ ] (c) 3-4 floor [ ] (d) Above 4 floors [ ]
6. Type of office accommodation
(a) Single user [ ] (b) 2 –3 users [ ] (c) General office [ ]
SECTION B
7. Have you witnessed a fire incident before?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]

8. From your experience, rate the following extents of damage according to the degree of
destruction in the fire incident (3. High, 2.Medium, 1.Minimal)
3 2 1
1- Death
2- Destruction of Property
3- Collapse of Building
4- Structural Defect
5- Loss of Prestige
6- Injury
7- Permanent Deformity

9. Indicate the following active fire protection means & equipment in relation to the availability
in your office complex. Use the scale below, thick as appropriate. (3 – Available, 2-Not
Available 1. Not sure)
Equipments 3 2 1
1- Smoke Detector
2- Heat Detector
3- Flame Detector
4- Fire Alarm
5- Sprinkler System
6- Portable Fire Extinguishers
7- Halon Gas System
8- Fusible Link Door
9- Fire Exits
10- Emergency Lighting System
11- Fire Hose Reel
12- Dry Riser

17
 13- Wet Riser
14- Fire Hydrant
15- Fire Safety Signs
16- Fire Buckets
10. Indicate the following in accordance to the level of functionality in your office complex
according to the below scale (4- Highly factional, 3 – Functional,
2 – Non functional, 1- Not sure)
4 3 2 1
1- Smoke Detector
2- Heat Detector
3- Flame Detector
4- Fire Alarm
5- Sprinkler System
6- Portable Fire Extinguishers
7- Halon Gas System
8- Fusible Link Door
9- Fire Exits
10- Emergency Lighting
System
11- Fire Hose Reel
12- Dry Riser
13- Wet Riser
14- Fire Hydrant
15- Fire Safety Signs
16- Fire Buckets

9. How often do you attend fire safety training (a) frequent [ ](b)Often [ ] (c) Rarely [ ]
(d) Never [ ]
10. Kindly indicate the frequency of your training on First Aid Fire Fighting. (a) Frequent
[ ] (b) Often [ ] (c) Rarely [ ] (d) Never [ ]
11. How often do you receive training on Evacuation procedure?
(a) Frequent [ ] (b) Often [ ] (c) Rarely [ ] (d) Never [ ]
12. Kindly indicate to the level of your perception the level of responsibility apportion to the
following in case of fire outbreak (5- High, 4 -Above average, 3- Average 2- Below average
1- None.)
5 4 3 2 1
1- Building Designers
2- Regulatory Bodies
3- Fire Fighters
4- Building Occupant
5- Service Organizations
(E.G. PHCN, Water Cooperation,
Nitel )
6- Building Owner

13. Do you know the current fire emergency Call telephone numbers?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
14. If yes, please list them:
1. .........................................,
2. …………………………………,
3. …....……………………………,
4. ………………………………….,
15. Will you be interested in the outcome of this research? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
16. If yes, state the E-Mail address you want the result top be sent to
………………………………………………..

18
Appendix 2: Questionnaire 2 on Assessment of Fire Safety Practices in Public Buildings (for
professionals)

Please Tick as Appropriate [ ]

1. Academic Qualification of Respondent
(a)HND [ ] (b) B.SC [ ] (c) PGD [ ] (d) M.SC/M.TECH [ ](e) PHD [ ]
2. Professional Qualification
(a) MNIOB [ ] (b) MNIA [ ] (c) ANIQS [ ] (d) MNSE [ ]
(e) MNIESV [ ] (f) OTHERS [ ]
3. Year of Experience
(a) 1 – 5 yrs [ ] (b) 6 – 10yrs [ ] (c) 11- 15yrs [ ]
(d) 16-20yrs [ ] (e) 21 – 25 yrs [ ] (f)26 – 30 yrs [ ]
4. Do you normally provide fire safety devices at the design stage in building? (a) YES [ ]
(b) NO [ ]
5. The under listed are various type of fire safety devices, kindly indicate (using the scale
below) the frequency of your provision.
Scale: 4 – Always, 3 – Sometimes, 2 – Rarely, 1 – Never

Equipments 4 3 2 1
1. Smoke Detector
2. Heat Detector
3. Flame Detector
4. Fire Alarm
5. Sprinkler System
6. Portable Fire
Extinguishers
7. Halon Gas System
8. Fusible Link Door
9. Fire Exits
10. Emergency Lighting
System

11. Fire Hose Reel

12. Dry Riser
13. Wet Riser
14. Fire Hydrant
15. Fire Safety Signs
16. Fire Buckets

6. In the design team you have worked with, indicate the level of activity of the following
professionals in the design and construction of building.
Scale: 4 – Actively involved, 3 – Involved, 2 – Rarely involved,
1 – Not involved.

Professionals 4 3 2 1
Builders
Architects
Quantity Surveyor
Civil Engineer
Estate Manager
Firefighters

19
7. At the design stage, kindly assess the level of importance of the following factors in the
integration of fire safety devices in building.
Scale: 4 – Very important, 3 – Important, 2 – Somewhat important,
1 – Not important.

Factor 4 3 2 1
Size of Building
Complexity of Building
Clients’ Brief
Purpose of Building
Financial Capability of Client
Type of Building
Type of Occupant

8. Kindly indicate the level of influence the under listed has contributed to the hindrance of
integration of fire safety devices in buildings?
Scale: 4 – Very high, 3 – High, 2 – Low, 1 – Very low.

Factor 4 3 2 1
Initial Cost
Maintenance Cost
Government Policy
Ignorance of Professionals
Ignorance of client
Carelessness of Design Team
Attitudes of End Users

Appendix 3 – Checklist for Physical Observation

1. Name of building:…………………………………………………………
2. Location of building:………………………………………………………
3. No of floors:………………………………………………………………
4. a) From the under listed, which of the following fire fighting equipments is available in
the building:(tick as appropriate)
b) Indicate the level of functionality of the available equipment based on:
-Appearance
-Label (name, operation instruction/safety precaution)
-Servicing/maintenance chart
Equipments availability functionality
1. Smoke Detector
2. Heat Detector
4. Flame Detector
5. Fire Alarm
6. Sprinkler System
7. Portable Fire
Extinguishers
8. Halon Gas System
9. Fusible Link Door
10. Fire Exits
11. Emergency Lighting
System

12. Fire Hose Reel

13. Dry Riser

20
 14. Wet Riser
15. Fire Hydrant
16. Fire Safety Signs
17. Fire Buckets

5. Identify the proximity of the escape route/fire exit:

………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Other observations:
…………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 4 – Questions for oral interview with Firemen

1. Location of fire office:……………………………………………..
2. Rank of Fire officer:………………………………………………
3. Year of working experience:………………………………………
4. How often do your offices organize training for occupant of public
building:…………………..
5. What are the likely constraints:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
6. How often do organizations contact your office for fire related training:…………..
7. Is there a standard fire code in the country?…………………….
8. How can you comment on the implementation and administration of the fire code:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
9. How often do organizations, industries, building owners contact you for issuance of fire
certificate?………………………………………..
10. Oftentimes, firemen are mostly blamed for damages in fire outbreak, what is you comment
on this assertion:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
11. Does your office keep record of fire incident (fire statistics)? ………
12. Can you make such information available for the purpose of this research? ……...

21

View publication stats