Protecting Civilians in Large Commercial Complex - Literature review Example

1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Mall as a Public Space Shopping malls generally altered the lives of many (Browne 1980, p.2) as it is no longer merely a place to shop but a shopper’s paradise, a public shrine, and a place to socialize. According to Muhlbacher et al. (2006, p.561), some people coming to the malls are window shopping and attracted by cool and air conditioned environment. Malls can be found in many countries in the world. In Canada, some malls contain 800 stores, ice-skating, and 24 movie screens. In Japan, an underground mall has 46 movie theatres and 1,500 restaurants. However, Burton (2009, p.135) explains that malls are not always a great place to be. For employees, working at malls is tiresome, as they have to work long hours, poor working conditions, lack of clean air and sufficient lighting. For shoppers, a mall is generally secured except for criminal elements waiting for an opportunity (Green et al. 2002, p.319). However, this does not mean a major disaster cannot happen in a mall. Although, mall may look like safe considering the number of security personnel around, malls are enclosed shopping centre and when a fire broke out, smoke and hot gases would rapidly spread (Hall & Greeno 2009, p.556). In addition, the density of occupants and the large number of shoppers at a certain time can mean real and serious danger when an accident occurred or a major criminal activity takes place. The following sections explain the different aspect of mall safety concerns and the need to protect civilians in this type of commercial facility. 1.2 Risk and Responses In general, risks are seen as the possibility of losses that may suffered by people and the built environment as result of hazards. Similarly, damages can be viewed as the number of casualties, destroyed properties, and time of delay in search and rescue activities (Casals & Margottini 2004, p.171). Responses on the other hand are actions occurring immediately before, during, and after the disaster to save lives, minimize damage to property, and enhance the effectiveness of recovery. However, the most important and probably more logical is mitigation policies and activities. Mitigation is prevention and identification of vulnerability to reduce the damage from future disasters. It may include structural mitigation where measures to keep hazards away from people and buildings, or to strengthen buildings, infrastructure such as electrical power, construction practices, and other relevant mitigation activities to withstand the consequences of disasters. Non-structural mitigation on the other hand is activities that would attempt to secure the population and the constructed environment to reduce disaster losses. For instance, zoning ordinances can reduce exposure by limiting the density of human occupancy in particularly hazardous areas (Mileti 1999, p.24). In practice, risks management may involve looking ahead in the future and resilience (Hood & Jones 1996, p.10). It may include anticipation and detection of factors that may affect the safety of individuals and the community in advance. One good example of these ‘precautionary’ measures is determining how a certain factor such as the number of people in one large complex can affect the safety of each individual in the area. Since the safest and the most logical response is to avoid all danger (Smith 2004, p.54), occurrence of accidents from hazardous factors does not excuse management for its negligence or failure to understand indications of impending danger (Sauer 2003, p.33). In addition, risks are real thus everyone has the immediate responsibility to develop an appropriate responses that include understanding the risk so underlying cause can be treated to avoid disaster (Howes 2005, p.25). Regulations and guidelines have been created in line with the increasing demand for public safety and increase safety of environments in which the public would be exposed (Wogalter & Dejoy 1999, p.3). Commercial facilities like malls present specific kinds of risks not only to its tenants, personnel, and other staff but to customers as well. Therefore, this type of facility requires effective control of hazards and coordination between mall owners, emergency responders, and local authorities. Hazards in malls may be associated with structural components, chemicals, by-products of shop operations, hazardous or unsafe practices by shop personnel, and other criminal activities (Erickson 2006, p.114). 1.3 Civil Protection and Shopping Malls The 21th century is seen as a new of era in terms of emergency preparedness as technology change rapidly, disease spreading worldwide through air travel, changing geopolitical trends, and increasing threat of terrorism presents fresh challenges for which the community as a whole should be ready to face. Consequently, novel approaches to civil protection are required (O’Brien 2006, p.1). Shopping malls offer a variety of conveniences for consumers. Numerous large and small retailers are at one location to facilitate one-stop shopping for consumers. In addition, restaurants and movie theatres offer a break while shopping. These malls have become privately owned public spaces for retailing and a symbol of changing spatial contexts of people’s everyday life (Shields 1992, p.1) Malls have the advantage of providing a controlled climate and protection against adverse weathers. Shopping malls offer a unique shopping experience and aside from protection from the weather, the atmosphere of cleanliness, spaciousness, good lighting, and good quality air-conditioning attracts thousands of shoppers a day from all occupations (Ibrahim & McGoldrick 2003, p.199). However, while shopping in mall is becoming a booming business, security and safety is likely to be required to protect people and merchandise (Purpura 1993, p.309). Measures protecting civilians against the harmful effects of untoward incidents are evident in many industrialised countries. Development of civil protection preparations includes natural and other human generated risks and hazards. Civil protection is generally concerned in mitigating the harms created by various hazards that may have severe effect on society (Amendola et al. 1995, p.3). Civilians shopping in malls are vulnerable to various kinds of safety issues, from fire, collapse, terrorism, etc. Government, mall owners and personnel, as mentioned above must mitigate whatever hazards they view can severely affect the well-being of civilians. Civil protection in this case extends to security as well as installation of safety devices in and outside the malls. 1.4 Safety Concerns in Malls Unlike traditional shopping centres, shopping malls are larger and include several anchor stores located at the ends of each wings. They are constructed with two or more levels that extend up to several blocks resembling a small city in a single building. More importantly, different types of business establishments constructed side-by-side facing the walkway area (Klaene & Sanders 2007, p.281) dwell in these large shopping malls. Consequently, customers and tenants of these shopping malls are demanding safety and security measures from the mall’s management (Overstreet & Clodfelter 2004, p.92). In Germany for instance, surveillance systems in shopping malls are more concentrated in fire prevention and property management than in social control. In addition, among the safety systems installed, more importance is being given to handling fire alarms (Helten & Fischer 2004, p.11). According to Chow & Ng (2002, abstract), safety concerns in malls are primarily occupants density, high fire load, and inadequate fire safety designs. In a more modern underground mall, the main concern is fire evacuation as rescue activity and fire fighting are difficult in this type of location (Daito & Tanida 2009, p.3). In the UK, crowded places such as malls are considered in real and serious danger from terrorism that damaged the centre and kill staff and customers (NaCTSO 2006, p.6). In addition, they are always vulnerable to common crimes because of adequate control at entrances (Grasser 2005, p.1). One of the main reasons why a crowded shopping mall may be dangerous in case of fire or other major incident is the reality that occupants of a shopping mall, which is a private but public place, are not very familiar with the building compared to people working in offices, schools, etc. Tsui & Chow (2003, p.1) explains that passive means of escape in a large lecture hall and a restaurant inside a shopping mall is similar if they have the same room capacity but the occupants response to escape during an incident is very different. In one study according to Abel (1996, p.161), people’s protective actions in the event of accident in a mall reveals that 58.5% would stay inside and 22.5% would chose to leave or escape. One good example how a mall accident can kill a large number of people was the Paraguay Mall Fire in 2004. This accident killed 296 people and injured more than 300 by a large explosion and blaze caused by a spark hitting an industrial-size propane gas tank in the mall’s food court. The flame spread fast when the wood and the roof caught fire. Shopper desperately ran to the exit doors but the mall guards shuts the doors to prevent customers from leaving without paying (Asuncion 2004, p.1). This incident would tell us that many people could have been saved if the mall has a clear civil protection strategies in placed. Clearly, the mall guards are more concern about the financial impact to the shops of people running for their lives without paying rather than civil protection. This is an indication of unpreparedness and ignorance of safety procedures. Surprisingly, such attitude towards an emergency and civil protection is very unusual but it can happen in a mall full of shoppers. Vulnerability of civilians in malls to various accidents and mishap can happen anytime unexpectedly. In Salt Lake City in the United States for instance, five shoppers were shot dead by an 18-year-old boy. The question here is not the motive of the boy but the capability of the mall to protect their shoppers against violent attacks. Although it is matter of security, it is also a question of civilian protection in general (Straw 2007, p.1). According Straw (2007, p.1), the greatest historical risk to shopping centres is bomb placed by an outsider. However, most malls according to the study had created emergency management plans but only a few had conducted risk assessments. It is the responsibility of mall owners to ensure appropriate security at their facilities (Wilson 1992, p.1). However, most mall security managers are helpless to restrict access of people because malls are inherently a public place. According to Wilson (1992, p.2), security in malls is much different in an airport because malls do not have X-Ray machines to detect firearms and other weapons. In addition, most malls have contingency plans are intended for holiday seasons thus accidents that would happen in regular days are more likely not part of this contingency plan. Public spaces similar to malls are often constructed from non-combustible materials thus, they are considered by the fire service as low risk. However, the implication of retail stores and activities inside the mall is another matter (Coleman 2006, p.428). In situation, a fire broke in an unsprinkled interior store of an L-shaped mall. The store was only separated from the mall by an open-mesh security gates and the sprinkler system of the mall only protects the central area and could not extinguish the fire in the store. Consequently, the fire spread to nearby stores and smoke filled the area. The ventilations cannot provide relief and little can be done due to severe heat and poor visibility (Norman 2005, p.106). In Altoona, Pennsylvania, a fire that began in an unsprinkled store rapidly spread to the mall walkway area and other stores. It stated in the store’s utility room then spread to the ceiling space through the mall area resulting to the destruction of numerous stores (Klaene & Sanders 2007, p.281). Malls are very different from residential buildings as fires may occur far inside the mall thus fire fighters or whoever caught by smoke inside a mall would travel long distance and may be suffocated by smoke. In addition, in such large and typical mall design, making an escape may not be too easy since one can be moving towards the fire instead of the nearest exit. According to Billington et al. (p.179), shopping malls becomes that initial escape route when a fire broke in a shop. The mall and shop for this matter is considered one single fire compartment thus safety designs of individual units and the common areas should be related. During a fire, shoppers will likely to leave by the route they are very familiar with and in this case, their route would be the mall itself. This means entrances to the malls would also serve as exits for evacuation purposes and must be clear of smoke in the event of fire. Fundamentally, the design of means of escape in a covered shopping complex like a mall should provide alternative means of escape and the travel distance to a place of safety must be limited. More importantly, it is not acceptable for the units to be used as an alternative escape route from a mall. 2. Bibliography Abel D. 1996. Proactive Response to Citizen Risk Concerns: Increasing Citizens' Knowledge of Emergency Response Practices, Journal of Public Relations Research. Volume: 8. Issue: 3, pp. 152-161 Browne R. 1980. Rituals and ceremonies in popular culture. Popular Press, US Burton D. 2009. Cross-Cultural Marketing: Theory, Practice and Relevance. Taylor & Francis, UK Casale R. & Margottini C. 2004. Natural disasters and sustainable development. Springer, Germany Chow W.K. & Ng M.Y. 2002, Fire Risk to Local Shopping Malls, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management.   Issue:  Volume 3, Numbers 2-4 / 2002   Pages:  152 – 169 Chow W.K. 2003. Possibility of Applying a Performance-Based Approach for Designing Means of Escape in a Public Transport Interchange. Architectural Science Review. Volume: 46. Issue: 3, p.273, University of Sydney, Faculty of Architecture, Gale Group, Australia Coleman P. 2006. Shopping environments: evolution, planning and design. Architectural Press, Italy Daito M. & Tanida N. 2009. A Fire Evacuation Model of Using Active RFID in Underground Shopping Mall, available at http://www.rcss.kansai-u.ac.jp/DPS/pdf/dp074.pdf Dawson J. 1980. Retail geography. Taylor & Francis, US Erickson P. 2006. Emergency response planning for corporate and municipal managers. Butterworth-Heinemann, US Grasser E. 2005. Protecting Malls from a Terrorist Threat, Magazine Article, Security Management, Vol. 49, October 2005 Green M., Strange J., & Brock T. 2002. Narrative impact: social and cognitive foundations. Routledge, US Hall F. & Greeno R. 2009. Building Services Handbook: Incorporating Current Building & Construction Regulations. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Helten F. & Fischer B. 2004. Reactive Reaction: Video Surveillance in Berlin Shopping Malls, available at http://www.surveillance-and-society.org /articles2%282%29/berlin.pdf Hood C. & Jones D. 1996. Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management. UCL Press. London Howes M. 2005.Politics and the Environment: Risk and the Role of Government and Industry, Allen & Unwin, Australia Ibrahim M.F. & McGoldrick P. 2003. Shopping choices with public transport options: an agenda for the 21st century. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK Klaene B. & Sanders R. 2007. Structural Firefighting: Strategy and Tactics. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, US Mileti D. 1999. Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. National Academies Press, US NaCTSO, 2006. Counter Terrorism Protective Security Advice for Shopping Centres, National Counter Terrorism Security Office, UK Overstreet J. & Clodfelter R. 2004. Safety and Security Concerns of Shopping Center Customers and the Effect of these concerns on shopping behaviour. Available at http://www.reuw.washington.edu /JSCR/IndArticles/Overstreet_N195.pdf O’Brien G. 2006. UK Emergency Preparedness: A Step in the Right Direction?. Journal of International Affairs. Volume: 59. Issue: 2, p.63 Columbia University School of International Public Affairs, Gale Group, UK Purpura P. 1993. Retail security and shrinkage protection. Butterworth-Heinemann, US Sauer B. 2003. The Rhetoric of Risk: Technical Documentation in Hazardous Environments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ, U.S. Shield R. 1992. Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption. Routledge. New York. Smith K. 2004. Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, Routledge, New York Straw J. 2007. Deterring Terrorists, Not Shoppers: Two Studies Suggest That Malls Could Decrease Vulnerability by Implementing Relatively Inexpensive Security Measures. Security Management. Volume: 51. Issue: 6. 2007. p. 30. Gale Group, US Wilson C. 2004. Securing America's New Town Centers. Security Management. Volume: 36. Issue: 6., June 1992. p. 40. Gale Group, US Wogalter M. & Dejor D. 1999. Warnings and Risk Communication, Taylor & Francis, London Read More