Guylene Proulx and David Yung 

National Fire Laboratory, National Research Council Canada 

Keywords 

Disabled, Evacuation, Handicap, Highrise 

ABSTRACT . 

In the past decade, there has been a great deal of interest in North America in providing equal 

accessibility to buildings for all people. For example, a large number of residential, office, 

institutional and mercantile buildings are now accessible, or being retrofitted for accessibility, to 

people with different disabilities. While accessibility is being promoted, the question of ''equal 

egressibility" is now becoming a subject of concern. Egressibility means that, in case of an 

emergency, the occupants have the ability to leave a building or to reach an area of safety 

unharmed. Egressibility does not mean that every occupant should evacuate in the same manner 

or through the same route; rather, it intends to provide an equal level of life safety for everyone. 

Different options to provide life safety for people with disabilities are presented in the literature 

and various approaches are considered in Canada. Building mangers have to choose between 

two strategies: protect-in-place and everybodyout. Each strategy necessitates carehl planning 

to establish an evacuation procedure that takes into account the building and occupant 

characteristics. 

In assessing the effectiveness of these two strategies and their evacuation procedures for 

occupants with disabilities, the general opinion is that there is no ideal solution that will resolve 

ail problems. The present paper discusses the two evacuation strategies and their 

complementary procedures that can be implemented to provide an acceptable level of life safety 

to occupants with disabilities in highrise buildings during emergencies. 

CIR-ASTM-ISO-RILEM 3 rd IntelConcept in Building;, Tel-Aviv, IsI'.?.. i2 1996. 

mal Symposium, ApslicationS of Psrfomiancc 
INTRODUCTION 

The issue of equal accessibility to buildings for occupants with physical disabilities has be 

resolved Over the years, with, for example, the introduction of elevators and access ramps 

most buildings (Traynor, 1994). The access of perceptually-impaired people has also be 

facilitated by new building components such as the use of raised or Braille characters for t 

blind on elevator buttons, and the introduction of simple wayfinding signs for the heari 

impaired. Too often, however, the problem of "equal egressibility" has not yet been taken i 

account. In Canada, in 1991, 15.5% of the population had a limitation of some type 

those, 93.7% lived in standard types of buildings from single-family houses to 

residential buildings (Statistics Canada, 1992). Among the people with disabilities of w 

age, more than half of them were working outside their homes, while 97% of disabled 

children were attending regular school. Thus, people with disabilities represent a 

percentage of potential users of multi-level buildings of all type of occupancies. 

Providing "equal egressibility" in highrise buildings does not imply that the means of egress will i 

be the same for everyone in all buildings, but that there should be an equal level of life safety for 

everyone. Furthenpore, not all disabled people are the same, and there should not be an attempt 

to necessarily solve everyone's problems with one ideal solution (NIST, 1995). Occupants with 

mobility impairments do not have the same needs as occupants with visual impairments, auditory 

impairments or mental impairments. In looking for solutions, it is important to keep in mind that 

a solution that is acceptable for one group may impede another. Ideally, the chosen solution 

should benefit more than one group or at least not impede the safety of any other. 

Standards have been set in the UK (Sime, 1987) and in the USA following the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (Cummings & Jaeger, 1993; BOCA, 1995). In Canada, the 1995 National 

Building Code and National Fire Code of Canada present the minimal fire safety requirements. 

All of these documents provide general guidance for designers, builders and fire safety engineers 

(Pauls, 1988, 1989). Building managers, however, are still hesitant about deciding how to 

provide acceptable life safety for occupants with disabilities in existing buildings. As the body of 

literature on the subject of fire safety and people with disabilities increases, managers are looking 

for plain information that would help them make the best decisions. This paper is an attempt to 

summarize the major options discussed in the Canadian context. 

FIRE SAFETY PLANNING 

A starting point in planning fire safety procedures for disabled occupants is to determine what 

the building provides in terms of fire safety features, as well as the needs and capabilities of the 

building users. Such information will help identifl the areas needing improvement and the 

problems to be resolved. 

The fire safety planning initially involves the definition of an evacuation strategy. The strategy 

should reflect the management's evacuation philosophy, taking into account fire safety 

requirements imposed by regulations and by occupants' needs as well as the building's 

characteristics and the cost-effectiveness of various options. Once the strategy is determined, a 

procedure can be defined. The procedure will describe the role and responsibilities of staff and 

occupants. It should include the precise sequence of actions to be taken in case of an emergency. 

Finally, a plan based on the procedure, is devised. It consists of clear and concise instructions 

intended for the occupants of the building. Copies of the plan are usually displayed in or near 

elevators, but should also be provided in employees' manuals or distributed when a person signs 

a lease. 

Evacuation Strategy 

Defining the evacuation strategy will involve a decision between two alternatives: protect-in- place or everybudy-out (PWC, 198 1). The prutect-in-place strategy implies that some or all 

occupants will stay in the building during a fire. These occupants will need a fire- and smoke- safe compartment where they can wait until firefighters control the situation or rescue them. 
jLlctl are referred to as areas ofrefbge, and include enclosed rooms and balconies. i-llc L,,7cr71body-out stratem refers to immediate evacuation of the full building or of the floors 

\vt,ere the occupants could be affected by the fire. In this case, those with mobility impairments 

l-c)r many highrise buildings, the evelybody-out strategy which, in its pure definition, implies 

1c,t31 evacuation, may not be a feasible alternative. Evacuating all occupants of a highrise tJLIi]ding could require considerable time, and could delay the evacuation of those who are in real 

,ianger. A better solution 1s using the evelybody-out strategy as a sequential evacuation It 

,,l,plies the evacuation of floors by priority, starting with the affected floor and those directly 

,t7uve and below. In many cases, occupants on floors remote from the fire floor may not need to 

ik.acuate at all. Occupants on the selected floors to be evacuated can move down to ground 

level or can go to a safe floor below. This strategy suggests that occupants with disabilities will 

moved up or down a number offloors. Implementing a sequential evacuation procedure requires training for all occupants including the disabled occupants and the accompanying 

[)"sons. A sequential evacuation will necessitate an efficient communication system that will 

give out precise instructons SO that occupants can understand who should evacuate to which 

&st ination. 

either evacuate using safe elevators or be carried down the stairs. 

protect-in-place strategy means that occupants will stay where they are or move 

horizontally to an area of refuge during a fire. It implies fire safety features that include: 

sprinkler and smoke control systems, fire and smoke resistant walls, ceilings and doors, and 

provision for occupants to communicate with people outside if they need help. 

Decisions on the chosen strategy should be made based on the design of the building, the fire 

safety features, the possible architectural modifications and the costs involved. For all buildings, 

the strategy will have to be explained to occupants using the evacuation plan and should be 

assessed through drills. In most highrise buildings, a communication system to inform occupants 

of the situation and to provide instructions would be needed. 

Evacuation Procedure 

Once a strategy has been selected, an evacuation procedure should be developed. The 

procedure is only useful insofar as people are willing and ready to use it. Obtaining disabled 

occupants' opinions in the early stages of the process will ensure that the procedure is accepted 

by all occupants. Whatever the strategy being considered, disabled occupants must be 

comfortable with the planned procedure. 

It is essential that the details of the procedure also be discussed with the local fire department to 

obtain their comments and suggestions, and to assess how their rescue activities relate to the 

evacuation procedure developed. 

The procedure is then described in the evacuation plan. The plan details specific instructions to 

follow in case of an emergency. The instructions may vary among occupants depending on their 

characteristics and needs. The evacuation plan should be available to all occupants, presented in 

manuals and posted in strategic locations. 

Occupant Training 

For many building users, planning for an emergency is not a high priority. Many occupants are 

not willing to spend the time necessary to familiarize themselves with complicated procedures. 

Keeping the procedures clear and simple is the best way to ensure that occupants will know and 

remember how to react during an emergency. Training is an important factor in improving 

occupants' knowledge of fire safety procedures. To be effective, three stages of training should 

be planned. During the first stage, talk-throughs or short seminars are used to describe the 

procedure to the occupants who can ask for explanations and discuss their specific needs and 

concerns. The second stage is to proceed with announced drills which put into practice the 

information received during the talk-throughs. Finally, surprise drills, as a third stage, should be 
used to assess the procedure and to improve the occupants' training. This three-step training procedure should be carried out every year in residential and office buildings. Drills are essential 

because they are the best way to assess the procedure and they offer an opportunity for actively 

training occupants (Proulx et al, 1995). 

Many managers are reluctant to carry out unannounced evacuation drills because they fear 

occupants will panic. The concern about people panicking during a drill is just as unjustified 

the fear of people panicking during a fire (Sime, 1980). Panic has never been shown to have 

important influence on the behaviour of occupants during a fire. In fact, panic rarely occurs, 

even during a very serious blaze (Keating, 1982). The primary concern should be to motivate 

occupants to participate in the fire safety education and training programs being provided. 

Training should not be seen as a burden or a waste of time, but should be seen as essential for a 

person's own safety and that of others. Drills, announced or unannounced, should never last 

much more than 10 min, which would be the time available in most buildings for occupants to 

reach safety during an actual fire. 

BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS 

The building characteristics include all components that can have an impact on the evacuation of 

occupants in case of an emergency. The design and architectural properties of the building, such 

as the size and location of staircases and exits, will affect occupants' evacuation possibilities. 

Those characteristics should be taken into account when developing the fire safety strategy and 

procedure. Certain features can be designed specifically for emergency situations. These 

include areas of refbge, safe elevators, sprinkler protection and smoke control systems. Other 

features used at all times will also be most valuable during an emergency, such as communication 

systems and wayfinding signage. All of these features can, in most cases, improve fire safety not 

only for disabled occupants, but for all building users. 

Areas of Refuge 

If the evacuation strategy selected is to protect-in-place, areas will be needed where occupants 

can wait safely until the situation is controlled or until they are rescued. Areas of refige, also 

known as safe areas, staging areas, areas of rescue assistance or areas of evacuation assistance, 

consist of an accessible space, equipped with fire doors and fire-resisting materials that limit the 

passage of fire and smoke. They are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 

buildings where there are no sprinklers and no accessible exits. The area of refbge should offer 

the same protection and fire-rating as an exit staircase. Some buildings use staircase landings as 

their areas of refbge. In these cases, the landing area must be large enough so that the staircase 

is not obstructed by disabled occupants waiting there, including wheelchair users. Most 

researchers believe that an area of refige should be directly connected to an escape route, such 

as a staircase or elevator. Such areas are called areas of rescue assistance. In situations where 

firefighters plan to use elevators to evacuate occupants, the elevator lobby can be designed to 

serve as an area of refbge, protecting occupants while they wait to use the elevators if leaving the 

floor is necessary. If an area does not open directly onto a stairway or elevator, it should at least 

be situated close to one so that people seeking refbge are easily accessible to rescuers, should the 

need arise to evacuate them (Klote et al, 1992). 

Other areas of refbge include same-level connections between two buildings, where two 

separate buildings are linked by a passageway, through which occupants can move to the next 

building and use its elevators for egress. Another option is the horizontal separation of floors, 

where floors are divided into two or more sections, with fire and smoke resistant doors between 

each compartment. In the event of a fire in one of the zones, occupants move to the other zone 

and wait there until the fire is extinguished or until they are rescued. Power-operated fire doors 

with a specified fire endurance could be used to protect areas of refbge. Door holders and 

closers can be wired into the alarm, which would result in the closing of all such doors when the 

alarm is activated (Gudgel, 1992). 
vr\ie safety of a refuge area depends on the details of the design, the type of fire exposure, the 

wind, the temperature conditions and the capability and reliability of the smoke control 

Without pressurization, areas of refbge can become dangerous. There is also serious 

concerns about using enclosed rooms which do not have two means of escape as areas ofrefuge. 

crucial aspect of the success of the area of refbge concept is the occupants' willingness to 

accept and use these areas during a fire. The organizational and human behaviour aspects of the 

llse of areas of refbge are more complex than those of the traditional total evacuation. The 

acceptance of areas of refbge by occupants, as a safe place to wait during an emergency, is also 

dependent on design details. For example, two-way communication should be provided in each 

area of refuge to allow occupants to signal their presence to rescue officers and to obtain 

information on the situation. Windows looking to the outside and inside of the building could 

prove to be a source of reassurance for occupants having to stay in refbge areas for a prolonged 

period of time. Also chairs should be installed in areas of refbge since potential users may not be 

in a wheelchairs but may not be able to stand up for a long time, such as people suffering from 

heart problems or rheumatism (Shields, 1993). 

When using rehge areas, coordination of the evacuation procedure with the fire department and 

other rescuers is essential, as the people in the area of refbge may need to be evacuated. 

Depending on their size and location, the areas of refbge can be used either only for disabled 

occupants, or for all occupants. For example, a staircase landing cannot hold more than a few 

occupants, while a horizontal separation may allow all occupants to remain in the building to 

wait for further instructions. From an owner's point of view, areas of refbge should not 

represent non-leasable space. Owners can therefore use existing areas, such as elevator lobbies 

needed in everyday operations but modified to serve this purpose in an emergency. 

Safe Elevators 

In the context of the everybody-out strategy, safe elevators would be very usefbl to bring 

occupants with disabilities down to the ground level or to a floor with an area of refuge. The 

term 'safe elevator' refers to an elevator that can be safely used by occupants during a fire. The 

technology to ensure that elevators are safe to use in a fire is available, but it still must be 

accepted by the codes before building owners will be willing to install them in their facilities. 

Safe elevators should be protected fiom fire, heat, smoke, water damage and power loss. 

Fire-resistant doors are needed; pressurization against piston and stack effect throughout the 

shaft is essential to control the smoke; dual power systems must be installed for reliability; and 

components that can hnction in a wet environment are also needed (Mote & Fowell, 1993). 

Finally, each floor should have an enclosed elevator lobby, similar to an area of refkge, where 

occupants can wait for the elevator. 

The organizational aspects of using safe elevators can be quite complex. First it must be 

determined if the use of the elevators during a fire will be restricted to disabled occupants only or 

available to all occupants. The limited capacity of the elevators will require the carefbl 

management of people, and some prioritizing will be essential, such as evacuating only specific 

floors unless the situation is threatening to all. 
''i 

In many buildings, safe elevators for firefighters are available but, currently, their use is limited to 

the rescue team during a fire. Fire safety procedures can be changed to accommodate disabled' 

occupants, but it might be problematic if firefighters need the elevators to deal with fire** 

suppression, while occupants are waiting to evacuate using the same elevators. If the elevator I 

lobby can Serve as an area of refbge, the disabled occupants can safely wait until the elevator is? 

fiee, or until the firefighters choose the best time to evacuate them. The evacuation procedures ~ 

should indicate clearly whether the occupants, the firefighters or the building managers, have 

priority and who has the responsibility for operating the elevators. Regardless of who is in4 

charge of managing and directing the elevators, disabled occupants should be able to contact a 

person in charge, or directly contact the elevator operator to identie themselves and 

communicate their status and location (Pauls et al, 1991). 

Finally, the signs installed should always provide clear and correct information about elevator 

use during a fire. For example, if safe elevators are provided, old signs indicating that occupants 

should not use elevators during fires should be replaced by signs indicating that these elevators 

can be safely used during an emergency and how and by whom they can be used. The use of 

elevators during a fire emergency will necessitate a complete re-education of occupants. 

Through the years, people have learned that, in case of fire, they should not use the elevators. 

Reversing these instructions implies that people must be re-educated and must understand where 

and when elevators can be safely used in fires. 

Fire Protection Systems 

It has been said that "the operation of a properly designed sprinkler system eliminates the life 

threat to all occupants" (Klote et al, 1992). This might be true theoretically, but sprinklers are 

not a perfect solution, for instance, they may not be triggered during a smouldering or a shielded 

fire. 

Similarly, other fire protection systems such as fire separations and smoke control systems may 

not work under certain circumstances. A properly designed and maintained fire protection 

system, however, will minimize the development of a fire, the spread of fire and smoke to other 

parts of the buildings and will allow time for occupants with disabilities to move to an area of 

safety. In large buildings, the cost of installing fire protection systems and of providing refuge 

areas could be cost-effective if the building is allowed to be built higher or to have larger floor 

areas than normally permitted, thus providing additional use of space. 

Communications 

The evacuation plan provided to occupants should spec@ the type of alarm that is used during a 

fire emergency, whether it will be a slow-whoop, a continuous bell, or the new Temporal 3 

signal. Until all buildings upgrade their alarm sounders to the Temporal 3 standard, it is essential 

to spec@ in the emergency plan which fire alarm sound is used in the building, to help occupants 

recognize the fire alarm. If information will come through a P.A. system, it should also be 

mentioned in the plan. 

It has been said that, during an emergency, what occupants need most is useful information. It is 

important to provide occupants with information on the fact that there is a fire, where the fire is 

located, and what is the best course of action (Proulx & Sime, 1991). For example, the location 

of the fire could influence the choice of egress route, and a P.A. system could be an effective way 

of keeping occupants informed about the unfolding situation. Occupants with disabilities would 

be most in need of information since they might have to wait to be rescued or they might have to 

follow different evacuation instructions than other occupants. 

As well, communication among occupants or between the occupants and the rescue team during 

an evacuation should not be overlooked. Occupants with disabilities have distinct needs in terms 

of communication, which vary from one person to the other, depending on the nature of their 
,imitations and on the fire safety procedure intended for them. Communication needs should be 

detemined on a case-by-case basis. 

Tl,roughout an evacuation, the alarm can seriously inhibit communication if the sound level is 

high. It is suggested that alarm sounders be installed in living and working areas rather than 

in circulation areas SUC~ as c~rridors or staircases, where the sound of the alarm may prevent 

It is also important to 

intempt the alarm whde messages are given though the P.A. system to ensure their audibility. 

\{‘hen firefighters arrive at a building, they sometimes turn off the alarm, even if the situation is 

not entirely under control. Ths procedure can lead occupants to believe that the emergency is 

okfer and they may decide to return to their initial locations. A continuing signal would keep 

occupants aware that the situation is still under investigation and that they should remain in a 

safe location. The sound level of the alarm should not be too loud in order to allow 

communication between occupants. Disabled occupants unfamiliar with evacuation procedures 

are very likely to need more information than most occupants; a loud alarm may increase their 

anxiety over a long period oftime, while preventing them fiom communicating with each other. 

co~~nicatl?n between occupants during an emergency. 

Wayfinding Signage 

Pictograms, signs and building plans are available in most buildings to help occupants find their 

way around the building during every use of the premises. These wayfinding signs should 

incorporate information on location of refbge areas and safe elevators. A building with efficient 

wayfinding signage will be most valuable during an emergency to help occupants find their way 

to safety. If the space is complex and occupants are not familiar with the evacuation route, signs 

will be relied upon to reach safety. The wayfinding signage should be straightforward to help in 

the occupants’ decision-making process during an emergency (Arthur & Passini, 1992). 

Identification signs are needed for refbge areas. There is not yet a convention on a standard sign 

to indicate an area of refbge. A standardized sign would increase the familiarity and the 

acceptance of the concept. The same point can be raised for the safe elevator; a standard sign 

should be developed to identie the specific elevators that can be used during a fire emergency. 

COMPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES 

Three systems can be implemented to complement and support the evacuation procedure. The 

first one, a fire warden system, can benefit all occupants. The other two, a list of occupants in 

need of assistance and a buddy system, can be especially usefbl for disabled occupants. The 

effective implementation of these systems constitute key elements in ensuring the success of the 

evacuation procedure. 

Fire Wardens 

Many office buildings have a system of fire wardens. Generally, one employee, working in each 

section of the building on every floor, is designated as a fire warden. Fire wardens should 

receive training and thus be well aware of the evacuation procedure. They are also expected to 

inform new occupants of the evacuation procedure and to make sure that everyone reaches an 

area of safety during an emergency. This kind of system seems to work well because it ensures 

that one person will take a leadership role during an emergency. It may create problems if the 

person chosen as the fire warden is not a person with a position of authority in everyday 

operations since, during an emergency, others might not be willing to listen to the instructions 

provided by a warden who is usually in a subordinate position. Also, the warden should not be 

a person who frequently has to work outside the premises, because that person may well be 

absent during an emergency. Alternate wardens have to be identified to replace fire wardens 

who may be away for holidays, sick leaves or other reasons. 

It is more complicated to implement a fire warden system in apartment buildings. In an 

apartment building, it is not reasonable to expect a resident to ensure that everyone has 

evacuated a section of the building; this person would need to have access to all the private 
apartments under his or her responsibility to make sure that all occupants leave. The pe 

chosen must be willing to take on the duty, should be physically able to help or to find help, 

should not be someone who is often away fiom the building. It is felt, however, that the ro 

fire warden could be modified to accommodate the needs of apartment buildings. The 

responsibilities could be limited to providing fire safety information to other occupants, to knock 

on all doors in the event of a fire, to be aware of the occupants who may need assistance and to 

report the location of occupants in need of assistance to the firefighters or rescue officers. Since ' 

the fire warden cannot be expected to be in his or her apartment at all times, there is no assurance -4 

that the warden will be there to help during a fire. Identieing more than one fire warden could 

resolve that problem, increasing the chances that at least one of them would be present during 

emergency. 

List of Occupants in Need of Assistance 

Many highrise buildings have what is sometimes called a ''fire list", which contains an up-to-date 

account of disabled people, a description of their limitations and their respective locations in the 

building. The list system, if kept up-to-date, is useful in quickly identifjing the people needing 

assistance, and can be consulted by rescue officers when they arrive on the scene. It should be 

stored where it can easily be accessed by arriving firefighters. 

The fire list, unfortunately, is not always a complete listing of all the occupants with disabilities. 

Some occupants may refuse to be on the list or may not come forward and ask to be listed. 

Others may have a disability that they refuse to acknowledge or which they feel does not impact 

their capacity to react during an emergency. Furthermore, visitors with disabilities would not be 

on the list. 

The main problem with fire lists is that often they are not kept updated. If the list is not accurate, 

firefighters may waste valuable time attempting to rescue occupants that have moved out of the 

building. For a fire list to be a useful tool, someone has to be given the responsibility for 

updating it every 3 to 6 months, ensuring that the latest version is available to firefighters and 

rescuers. Usually the list is placed in the fire alarm control panel, which is one of the first 

locations firefighters will investigate upon arrival. 

Buddy System 

Many ofice buildings, where disabled occupants are present, have implemented the buddy 

system. Each person with a limitation is paired with one or more people with no limitations. It 

is suggested that a person with a visibility or hearing impairment be assigned one buddy, and that 

a person with a mobility impairment be assigned two buddies. This system cannot be used if the 

person with a limitation does not want to be identified as such or does not want to receive special 

treatment. 

The buddies should be selected carefully. The buddy and the person with the disability have to 

be able to quickly make contact with each other in case of an emergency. If a buddy is untrained 

or inappropriate (e.g., not strong enough if the person must be carried), the system becomes 

ineffective. If the buddy appears untrained, it is unlikely that he or she will inspire the confidence 

necessary to motivate the disabled person to evacuate. In most cases, the disabled person should 

be able to determine if help is really needed and, if so, what form of help is required. It is 

sometimes planned that the buddies will carry the disabled person a few floors up or down, either 

by hand or with an evacuation chair. Such a procedure will necessitate considerable training 

from all parties to be safely executed during an emergency. 

The buddy is expected to remain with the person throughout the evacuation. If moving to 

another floor is necessary, some suggest that the buddy and the person with the limitation should 

wait until others have evacuated and the stairwells are fiee. This should depend on the person's 

type of disability and the evacuation technique used. For example, a deaf person can easily 

evacuate with the occupants' flow, at the same speed as other occupants, while carrying a person 

in a wheelchair down the stairs could block the entire staircase and, therefore, should be 
The buddy system could also be implemented in apartment buildings, but is not as convenient 

lvhen neighbours do not know each other very well. Some people with disabilities could feel that 

\laving a stranger designated to help them and having to practice the procedure goes against their 

need for privacy. It should be reassuring, however, for the person with the disability to have 

someone who h?ws how help in case of an emergency. The buddy system should not be seen 

a burden by either party If the buddies are carefblly paired off A person who is constantly 

away from the apartment or office building would not be a good choice for a buddy. 

Assigning a buddy ensures that a least one person is willing to take the responsibility for helping 

;he disabled person. If no one is designated as a buddy, there is a risk that all occupants will 

assume that someone else is going to help the disabled person and, meanwhile, this person could 

be left without help. The buddy system is especially useful for disabled occupants living alone. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The risk of fire cannot be completely removed fiom modem buildings. Many alternatives, 

however, are available at reasonable cost to ensure an acceptable risk-to-life for all occupants, 

including occupants with disabilities. The first step should be to decide on an evacuation 

strategy in relation to the building characteristics: either all occupants exit the building, or safe 

areas are designed so that some or all occupants can find refuge during an emergency. Once the 

strategy is selected, a procedure must be established, clearly defining evacuation actions to be 

performed by all occupants. The life safety measures implemented in buildings involve all 

occupants, whether disabled or not. At one point, anyone may be affected by an impairment, or 

be called upon to assist someone who is disabled, so it is imperative that everyone be aware of 

the procedure. To convey the information to the occupants, the emergency plan should be 

posted in the building and distributed to occupants. Regular training and practice for all 

occupants is an essential part of any successfbl fire safety procedure. 

REFERENCES 

Aikman, A. J.M. (1 993) Canada - A Leader in Providing for Persons with Physical Disabilities; 

The National Building Code of Canada Response to the Need for Accessibility and Egress, nird 

World Congress of Building OfJcials, New Orleans, LA, May 1-6, 1993, 15p. 

Arthur, P and Passini, R (1 992) WayJnding: People, Signs, and Architecture, McGraw-Hill, 

New York, NY, 238p. 

Building Oficials and Code Administrators International Inc. (1995) ADA, Five Years Later, 

7he Building OfJcial and Code Administrator, Vol. 29, No. 5, Chicago, IL, pp. 10-14. 

Cummings, R.B. and Jaeger, T.W. (1993) ADA Sets a New Standard for Accessibility, NFPA 

Journal, Vol. 87, No. 3, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp. 43-47, 92-96. 

Gudgel, R. (1992) Accessibility Over Safety?, Doors and HarhYare, Vol. 56, No. 4, Door and 

Hardware Institute, McLean, VA, pp. 24-26. 

Keating, J.P. (1 982) The Myth of Panic, Fire Journal, National Fire Protection Association, 

Boston, MA, May, pp. 57-61. 

Klote, J.H., Nelson, H.E., Deal, S. and Levin, B.M. (1992) Staging Areas for Persons with 

Mobility Limitations, prepared for the Office of Real Property Management and Safety, NISTIR 

4770, US Department of Commerce Technology Administration, Gaithersburg, MD, 1 79p. 
Note, J.H. and Fowell, A.J. (1993) Fire Protection Challenges of the Americans Disabilities I 

Act: Elevator Evacuation and Refbge kea, Proceedings, Symposium: Engineering Fire Safe9 1 

in the Process of Design, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, Northern 

Ireland 13-16 September 1993, pp. 79-91. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (1 995) Emergency Procedures for Employees 

with Disabilities in OfJce Occupancies, U. S. Fire Administration, Gaithersburg, MD, 26p. 

Pauls, J., Gatfield, A.J. and Juillet, E. (1991) Elevator Use for Egress: The Human-Factors 

Problems and Prospects, Symposium on Elevators and Fire, Baltimore, MD, February 19-20, 

199 1 , The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 63-75. 

pads, J. (1988) Life Safety for People with Disabilities: Literature review, Public Works 

Canada, Architectural and Engineering Services, Ottawa, Ontario, 75p. 

Pauls, J. (1989) Recent Technical and Social Developments Influencing the Life Safety of 

People with Disabilities, prepared for The Pacific Rim Conference of Building Officials, 

Honolulu, HA, 'April 9-13, 1989 and for me National Fire Protection Association Annual 

Meeting, Washington, DC, May 15-18, 1989,20p. 

Proulx, G., Latour, J.C., MacLaurin, J.W., Pineau, J., Hoffman, L.E. and Laroche, C. (1995) 

Housing Evacuation of Mixed Abilities Occupants in Highrise Buildings, Internal Report 706, 

Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 

92p. 

Proulx, G., Sime, D. J. (1991) To Prevent 'Panic' in an Underground Emergency: Why Not Tell 

People the Truth?, Fire Safety Science Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, G. 

Cox & B. Langford (Eds), Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 843-852. 

Public Works Canada (1981) Life Safety and Disabled People - Seminar Summary, March 1981, 

Cat. No W63-4/1981E, Design and Construction, Ottawa, 54p. 

Shields, T. J. ( 1993) Fire and Disabled People in Buildings, Fire Research Station, Building 

Research Establishment, Borehamwood, England, 73p. 

Sime, J.D. (1980) The Concept of 'Panic', in Fires andHuman Behaviour, D. Canter (Ed.), John 

Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 63-81. 

Sime, J.D. (1987) Access and Egress for the Handicapped in Public Buildings, in Building 

Design for Handicapped and Aged Persons: An International Inventory, G. Haber afld 

T. Blanks (Eds.), Portsmouth, UK, 27p. 

Statistics Canada (1992) The Daily, October 13. 1992, Catalogue 1 1-00 lE, Ottawa, ON, p. 1. 

Traynor, J. ( 1994) Building a Truly Universally Accessible Building, Construction Canada, 

May/June, Vancouver, BC, pp. 6-7.