People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF)
Evacuation Chair Devices – Fire Engineering for All in Buildings ?
This post has been running around in the back of my mind for quite some time … and I know now, for far too long ! But recently, my patience with certain manufacturers and suppliers of evacuation chair devices has reached its limit.
In relation to Building Users … previous posts have examined the technical term: Place of Safety (see the post dated 2009-10-24) … and why this concept is an essential starting point in the development of any practical … and comprehensive … fire engineering strategy for a building.
Previous posts have also explored the complex issue of Areas of Rescue Assistance in a building (see posts dated 2009-03-10 & 2009-03-17).
For the purposes of this discussion, now, a clear statement of Fire Engineering Design Objectives is required …
- Evacuation for All Building Users … with an assurance of health, safety and welfare protection during the course of that evacuation.
- Sustain Building Serviceability during Evacuation … at the very least, while people are waiting in Areas of Rescue Assistance … and, until all of those people can be rescued by Firefighters and can reach a Place of Safety.
.
We are rapidly approaching the day when all lifts/elevators in a building must be capable of being used during the course of a fire incident. AND … these lifts/elevators must be situated so that … alternative, safe and intuitive means of evacuation … are effectively presented to all building users.
Greedy vested interests continue to impede the onset of that inevitable day.
Another surprising barrier to the implementation of this goal, however, is the sloppy and incompetent drafting of fire engineering design standards and codes of practice. Previous posts have discussed … and shown … some of the serious problems with British Standard BS 9999 – Code of Practice for Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings (2008).
A ‘Restricted’ Architectural Vocabulary is yet another barrier to implementation. High-Rise and/or Complex Buildings are still typically being designed for Access … not Evacuation ! This fault very definitely lies with the architectural and engineering schools throughout Europe.
.
Until all lifts/elevators in a building are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … there is an obvious and pressing need for a fire engineering design solution which involves the installation, maintenance and proper use of Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices … which need to be powered or manual depending upon the particular circumstances in a building !
AND, even when all lifts/elevators are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … because lifts/elevators must always undergo routine servicing and maintenance and they will not, therefore, be in operation for short periods of time … there will still be an obvious need for Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices. So, these fire-evacuation related products should never be regarded as a wasted investment !
I have repeated the word ‘Approved’ because, unfortunately, since these are also disability related products … insufficient attention, and emphasis, is given to Product Approval in this Market Sector, i.e. showing that the product is ‘fit for its intended use, in the location of use’.
At the most basic level imaginable … National Building Regulations in the European Union Member States, and E.U. Safety at Work and Product Liability Legislation … all demand Product Approval.
.
Performance Requirements for Fire Evacuation Chair Devices: Fire Evacuation Chair Devices, powered or manual, must be capable of …
- being safely and easily operated ;
- carrying people of large weight (150 Kg minimum) ;
- going down staircases which, in existing buildings of historical, architectural and cultural importance, may be narrow and of unusual shape ;
- travelling long distances horizontally … in a robust and stable manner … both within a building … and externally, perhaps over rough ground … in order to reach a Place of Safety.
When going up a staircase is necessary in order to reach a Place of Safety, a powered evacuation chair device must be provided !
.
Fire Evacuation Staircases: A vivid image, with a few accompanying words, are necessary …
Unlike the incredible scene shown in the colour photograph above ... Fire Evacuation Staircases must be suitable for Safe, Intuitive and Unhampered Building User Evacuation, Firefighter Contraflow and the Assisted Evacuation of People with Activity Limitations. A Minimum Clear Width of 1.5 Metres (from edge of handrail to edge of handrail !) is required. Click to enlarge.
.
Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & What To Avoid: Can you spot the Evacuation Chair Device in the first photograph below ?
Colour photograph showing a Fire Evacuation Chair Device Installation at Dublin Airport, Ireland. On so many levels and in so many ways, this 'decorative' installation ... intended to demonstrate that an organization is complying with legislation ... will prove to be, in the event of a real fire emergency, SO wrong and unworkable. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2008-04-04. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing a Manual/Gravity Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. Transfer from a wheelchair to this type of device at the top of a staircase can be difficult and hazardous ... it can only travel down a staircase, using gravity (never up, against gravity !) ... and during horizontal travel, it is shaky and unstable. Click to enlarge.
.
Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & Issues To Carefully Consider: Modern wheelchairs come in all shapes, sizes and styles … are highly adapted by their owners … and can be very expensive. Why is it a surprise, therefore, to learn that most wheelchair users will not want to abandon their expensive personal property, i.e. the wheelchair, in the event of a real fire emergency.
The answer, of course, is PROPER CONSULTATION with All Building Users (where these are known !) during the preparation of a Fire Defence Plan for a Building.
The following photographs illustrate different aspects of the capability of Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Devices …
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase, using the person's own manual wheelchair. Having completed its task at the bottom (or top !) of a staircase ... the device can be quickly released for use by another person who needs assistance on the staircase. Throughout this process, wheelchair users move independently to a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing another Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device. This particular device facilitates evacuation of an adapted manual wheelchair, which may (or may not !) be the person's own wheelchair. It also facilitates travel on narrow or unusually shaped staircases. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase. It is also robust and stable while travelling horizontally ... both within a building ... and externally, perhaps over rough ground ... in order to reach a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
.
Product Approval in the European Union Single Market: Fire Evacuation Chair Devices must be permanently CE Marked … including the product itself, any cover (such as that shown in the Dublin Airport photograph above), all product literature, and any product packaging.
It is not acceptable to print the CE Mark on an adhesive label … and then stick the label to the product ! Correct informative text must always accompany a CE Mark !
Please note that the CE Mark is not a Safety Mark. A CE Mark denotes conformity with the Essential Requirements of a single, specific European Union Directive.
.
.
END
Social Rights in Ireland – Why the Constant Struggle ?
Attention anybody who is screaming, struggling, protesting … being forced to revolt against an unjust and uncaring ‘system’ … so that Vulnerable Individuals and Groups … older people, children, people with disabilities, the homeless, etc., etc., etc … will be treated with dignity, equality and respect in our society … Ireland and the European Union. Pinch yourselves … we are Irish and Europeans !
It is helpful, as an introduction, if a distinction is made between human rights and social rights …
Social Rights: Rights to which an individual person is legally entitled, e.g. the right to free elementary education [Art.26(1), 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights], but which are only exercised in a social context with other people, and with the active support of a competent legal authority, e.g. a Nation State.
Commentary: In contrast to Human Rights, it is not protection from the State which is desired or achieved, but freedom with the State’s help.
Social Rights, as distinguished here, include and extend beyond current understandings of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
.
Early in the year 2000 … the European Parliament issued a Working Paper (reference PE 168.629) with the title: ‘Fundamental Social Rights in Europe’. The authors were Mark Eric Butt, Julia Kübert and Christiane Anne Schultz. The manuscript was completed in November 1999.
Without getting into the fine detail of the Working Paper … the following Table, on Page 31, is very enlightening …
Click to enlarge this Table.
In the Working Paper, the Table is explained …
‘ The following Table is an overview of the contents of the Member States’ constitutions. It shows what fundamental social rights are enshrined in the constitutions. It is impossible, however, to forge a link between the existence of fundamental social rights and the existence and level of social benefits and institutions in the Member States concerned. This is clear, primarily, from Austria and Great Britain, their columns being empty – whereas they do, of course, have social rights.
The symbol … simple black box … in the table means that the right concerned is referred to in the constitution. The other symbol … shadowed white box … means that, though not explicitly enshrined in the constitution, it is recognised.’
The Countries are listed in the order … Belgium (B), Denmark (DK), Germany (D), Greece (GR), Spain (E), France (F), Ireland (IRL), Italy (I), Luxembourg (L), The Netherlands (NL), Austria (A), Portugal (P), Finland (FIN), Sweden (S) and Great Britain (UK).
.
Now … compare and contrast … paying particular attention to Ireland …
Interesting … isn’t it ?
.
.
END
ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Flawed ?
International Guidance Document … ISO/IEC Guide 71 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities was issued in November 2001.
European Guidance Document … CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 : Guidelines for Standards Developers to Address the Needs of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities … a similar document … was issued a little later, in January 2002.
These Guides provide basic guidance to people drafting International & European Standards on how to take into account the needs of people with activity limitations, particularly older persons and people with disabilities. While recognizing that some people with very extensive and complex impairments may have requirements beyond the level addressed in these documents, a very large number of people have minor impairments which can easily be addressed with a very small change of approach by people writing the Standards. Typically, the problem is solely a lack of awareness.
Unfortunately, few Standards Developers … in either organization … are paying the slightest bit of attention to these Guides.
People with Activity Limitations: Those people, of all ages, who are unable to perform, independently and without aid, basic human activities or tasks – because of a health condition or physical/mental/cognitive/psychological impairment of a permanent or temporary nature.
.
1. A full six months before the appearance of ISO/IEC Guide 71 … all of the 191 Member States of the World Health Organization endorsed, and officially adopted, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF) on 22nd May 2001 … which replaced the earlier International Classification of Impairment, Disability & Handicap (ICIDH), dating from 1980.
While the previous health indicators had been based on the mortality (i.e. death) rates of populations … the new 2001 WHO ICF dramatically shifted the focus to ‘life’ and ‘living’ … in other words, how everyone is living with his/her health condition(s) and how improvements can be made to ensure a productive, fulfilling life in society.
This had important implications for medical practice; for legal, social, economic, institutional, design and spatial planning policies to improve accessibility, equal opportunity for all and inclusion; and for the protection of the rights of all individuals and groups.
Of special interest for people involved in any of the technical fields mentioned above … the 2001 WHO ICF also introduced a new disability-related language and terminology.
BUT … But … but … ISO/IEC Guide 71 and CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 do not use the 2001 WHO ICF’s innovative language and terminology. Consequently, these International & European Guides are flawed.
For a very good example of WHAT MUST BE AVOIDED (!) in the drafting of International & European Standards … please examine the following text …
ISO DIS (Draft International Standard) 21542 : Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment … dated November 2009 …
Section 3 Terms & Definitions
‘ #3.36 Impairment
Limitation in body function or structure such as a significant deviation or loss which can be temporary due, for example, to injury, or permanent, slight or severe and can fluctuate over time, in particular, deterioration due to ageing.
[ISO/TR 22411:2008]
NOTE 1 Body function can be a physiological or psychological function of a body system; body structure refers to an anatomic part of the body such as organs, limbs and their components (as defined in ICIDH-2 of July 1999).
NOTE 2 This definition differs from that in ISO 9999:2002 and, slightly, from ICIDH-2/ICF: May 2001, WHO: ‘any loss or abnormality of a body function, or body structure’.
NOTE 3 The word ‘abnormality’ is strictly used here to refer to a significant deviation from an established population mean, within measured statistical norms. Impairments can be physical, mental, cognitive or psychological.’
As clear as mud … what a mess ! This does nothing only sow needless confusion in the mind of a reader.
Unless and Until … we properly harmonize, at a technical level, disability-related language and terminology … in order to improve communication … we will all continue to run around in circles and make little forward progress !!!
[ At the level of the individual, people should always be free to use whatever language they wish. ]
Our Guidance to All Standards Developers is … whether working within the International Standards Organizations (ISO & IEC) or the European Standards Organizations (CEN & CENELEC) … or both …
‘ People with Activity Limitations must be properly considered at all stages in the development of a Standard … and any disability-related terminology used … should be fully consistent with the World Health Organization’s 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF). Confusing and contradictory texts should be avoided.’
.
2. In relation to ISO/IEC Guide 71 & CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 – Table 7 (Page 13 in both Guides) … #8.23 Fire Resistance requires a complete re-assessment. On Page 21 of ISO/IEC Guide 71 and Page 22 of CEN/CENELEC Guide 6 … the supporting text for #8.23 has the different heading of ‘Fire Safety of Materials’ ?!? Confusing, isn’t it ?
The Revised Title in Table 7 and the supporting text should read … Fire Safety. ‘Fire Resistance’ is but one of many passive fire protection concepts … a very small sub-set in the wide technical field of ‘fire safety’ in buildings. ’Fire Resistance’ is not used in connection with the ignition and fire development behaviour of materials or fabrics.
Relevant Factors for #8.23 are not properly indicated, in Table 7, under Columns #9.2, #9.3, #9.4 (a glaring omission !) & #9.5.
.
3. Pertinent to ‘fire safety’ in buildings … this text was removed from ISO CD (Committee Draft) 21542 … the previous version of the ISO Standard, dating from December 2008 …
ISO CD 21542 – Annex A.1.2 – 2nd Paragraph
‘ Building users should be skilled for evacuation to a place, or places, of safety remote from the building. In the case of people with a mental or cognitive impairment, there is a particular need to encourage, foster and regularly practice the adaptive thinking which will be necessary during a ‘real’ fire evacuation.’
The Definition for the Term Skill (#3.60) is still retained in the later ISO DIS 21542 version of the Standard …
‘ The ability of a person – resulting from training and regular practice – to carry out complex, well-organized patterns of behaviour efficiently and adaptively, in order to achieve some end or goal.’
.
4. While there are eight references to ‘Cognitive Impairment’ in both Guides … nowhere is this term defined … or distinguished from ‘Mental Impairment’ …
Cognitive Impairment: A deficiency of neuropsychological function which can be related to injury or degeneration in specific area(s) of the brain.
Mental Impairment: A general term describing a slower than normal rate in a person’s cognitive developmental maturation, or where the cognitive processes themselves appear to be slower than normal – with an associated implication of reduced, overall mental potential.
A deeper understanding, at a technical level, of the many different types of health conditions and impairments (physical/mental/cognitive/psychological) … can only result in a better designed, more facilitating Human Environment.
One final important term … when considering Fire Safety in Buildings …
Panic Attack: A momentary period of intense fear or discomfort, accompanied by various symptoms which may include shortness of breath, dizziness, palpitations, trembling, sweating, nausea, and often a fear by a person that he/she is going mad.
I have long held the view that, in Fire Engineering, dramatic breakthroughs will result from a closer study of Cognitive Psychology.
.
.
END
2009 Camberwell Fire – Today’s Fire Engineering Challenges
In Ireland, it is rarely the case that there is an opportunity to practice Rational, Evidence-Based Fire Engineering … and to apply its Principles in a manner which is both professional and project-specific. The grim reality of everyday fire consultancy revolves around playing ‘cat and mouse’ with current national building and fire regulations/codes … with ‘cost effectiveness’, i.e. to achieve a defined objective at the lowest cost, or to achieve the greatest benefit at a given cost … being the real, hidden driver behind such dangerous games ! Who wants to hear that the Irish Fire Safety Certification System is little more than a charade … an elaborate, resource consuming paper exercise … made all the more meaningless because Part B: ‘Fire Safety’ (of the Second Schedule to the 1997 Building Regulations, as amended) is isolated from a necessary and vital consideration of the other Parts, particularly Parts A: ‘Structure’; D: ‘Materials & Workmanship’; K: ‘Stairways, Ladders, Ramps & Guards’; and M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ ?
.
Colour photograph showing an external view of Lakanal House, Sceaux Estate, Camberwell, London (GB) ... after the Fatal Fire which occurred at 16.19 hrs, on 3rd July 2009. The fire was caused by a faulty television set, and resulted in the loss of 6 lives, with 15 residents and 1 firefighter left injured. London Fire Brigade was required to assist the evacuation of a further 40 building occupants to safety. Along with the serious loss of life, and the large number of injured people ... over 90 families had to vacate their flats.
.
Discussing the Principles of Fire Engineering … and elaborating on the significant differences between the limited Fire Safety Objectives of legal regulations/codes … and the much broader range of Fire Engineering Design Objectives intended to fully protect social wellbeing and the interests of clients/client organizations, i.e. to properly protect their asses and their assets, in the event of a fire … is a constant, tortuous, but rewarding, struggle. Masochism does help !
However, the 2009 Fire in a High-Rise Flat Complex at Camberwell, London (GB) … from just looking at the photograph above and reading available information about the spread of fire internally … raises some challenging fire engineering issues for building designers, property managers and construction organizations.
.
1. Reliability of People Strategies in a Fire Emergency ?
In spite of the People Strategies elaborated in current Fire Codes/Regulations/Standards … it is totally and utterly irresponsible to advise people to wait in their own flats/apartments during a fire incident, or to develop fire safety strategies based on this approach … unless the confidence level (of ‘Competent Persons’ in Control … managers, designers and builders … of the flat/apartment complex) with regard to the following aspects of construction is very high …
- reliability of both passive and active fire protection measures ;
- reliability of fire compartmentation (see below) ;
- reliability of not just the building’s structural stability, but also its serviceability, during the fire and for a minimum period of time afterwards, i.e. the ‘cooling’ phase.
Competent Person: A person capable of making sound value judgements in the area of professional endeavour in which he/she possesses profound knowledge, understanding and practical experience.
Fire Codes/Regulations/Standards, wherever or whatever their origin, are NOT Infallible … and it is unbelievably mind-boggling, and sad, to witness a blind and unquestioning faith in such documents !
Looking beyond the headline figure of 6 Fatalities in the 2009 Camberwell Fire … adequate attention should also be focused on the 16 Injured … comprising building occupants and firefighters … the lengthy disruption of community wellbeing resulting from the fire … 90 Families had to be re-located … and, of course, the tremendous amount of direct and indirect damage to property and the environment. And, I wonder … how did the more vulnerable occupants … and there may also have been visitors present in the complex at the time … cope in this emergency situation ?
This is why Fire Safety, Protection and Evacuation for All must be a Priority on any ‘Sustainability’ Agenda.
.
2. Independent Technical Control of AHJ Construction ?
I have said this before, but it is worth repeating here again … Self-Regulation Is No Regulation ! Surely this lesson has been burnt into our souls, following the recent scandals, financial and otherwise, in Ireland ? National and Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) … Government Departments & Agencies, Semi-State Organizations, a myriad of Qwangos, the Office of Public Works and Local Authorities are complacent, careless and stubborn concerning proper compliance with even the minimal performance requirements specified in fire regulations, codes and standards.
The 2005 & 2008 National Institute of Standards & Technology (USA) Reports on the 9-11 WTC Incident in New York presented us with some stark language … and a set of important Recommendations which must be heeded …
‘ NIST recommends that such entities be encouraged to provide a level of safety that equals or exceeds the level of safety that would be provided by strict compliance with the code requirements of an appropriate governmental jurisdiction.
To gain broad public confidence … NIST further recommends that as-designed and as-built safety be certified by a qualified third party, independent of the building owner(s). The process should not use self-approval for code enforcement in areas including interpretation of code provisions, design approval, product acceptance, certification of the final construction, and post-occupancy inspections over the life of the buildings.’
[2005 NIST Final Report on WTC 1 & 2 Collapses - Recommendation No. 25]
Later posts, here, will examine the individual NIST Recommendations in more detail.
However … many individuals and organizations, with vested interests, are still trying to discredit and/or ignore the Recommendations contained in the 2005 & 2008 NIST Reports on the WTC 9-11 Incident. British Standard BS 9999:2008 is a typical case in point … a document which is slowly seeping into the marrow of the Irish Fire Establishment. The complete and abject failure to consider any of the NIST Recommendations during the long development of this British Standard, or even to reference the Reports in the Standard’s Bibliography … was an inexcusable and unforgivable technical oversight. The result was … and remains … a sloppy, crassly inadequate, deeply flawed and discriminatory national fire safety standard. The British Public deserves far better !
At this stage … reluctantly … I must invite the Chair of British Standards Institution Committee FSH/14, Mr. David B. Smith, to seriously re-consider his position.
.
3. Fire Resistance, Compartmentation & Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?
Every person participating in the design, construction, management or operation of a building, no matter how simple or complex, must have a working knowledge and proper understanding of the Fire Engineering Principle of Fire Compartmentation:
The division of a building into fire-tight compartments, by fire and smoke resisting elements of construction, in order …
- to contain an outbreak of fire ;
- to prevent damage, within the building, to other adjoining compartments and/or spaces ;
- to protect a compartment interior from external fire attack, e.g. fire spread across the building’s facade or from an adjacent building ;
- to minimize adverse, or harmful, environmental impacts outside the building.
.
BUT … But … but … buildings are no longer designed and constructed, today, as they were in the 18th or 19th Centuries …
In a fire situation, Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse may commence before any breach of ‘integrity’ occurs in the boundary of such a Fire Compartment, i.e. the building compartment of fire origin.
Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse: The sequential growth and intensification of distortion, displacement and failure of elements of construction in a building – during a fire and the ‘cooling phase’ afterwards – which, if unchecked, will result in disproportionate damage, and may lead to total building collapse.
… which is related to, but distinguishable from …
Disproportionate Damage: The failure of a building’s structural system … (i) remote from the scene of an isolated overloading action ; and (ii) to an extent which is not in reasonable proportion to that action.
Structural Fire Engineering: Those aspects of fire engineering concerned with structural design for fire, and the complex architectural interaction between a building’s structure and fabric, i.e. non-structure, under conditions of fire and its aftermath.
.
AND … And … and … a designer of a Sustainable Building will want to utilize … in order to conserve energy … natural patterns of air movement for heating or cooling. This means that it will be necessary to have gaps between elements of construction which are continuously open … in direct conflict with the Principle of Fire Engineering just quoted above !
What happens when this sort of conflict … or lack of resolution (!) … occurs in modern, highly energy-efficient construction projects ? At the final stages of approval/certification … the Fire Prevention Officer will insist on following the outdated prescriptive approach in his/her rulebook. In other words, he/she will illegally apply the guidance text of Technical Guidance Document B as if it were prescriptive regulation. Fire Compartmentation will be uncompromisingly slapped onto ‘unresolved’ areas of a completed building design … to achieve the limited Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations … and the fire safety related construction will probably be badly executed, anyway, because the un-supervised sub-contractors of sub-contractors of sub-contractors couldn’t care less if it goes one way or the other ! The outcome is … nobody wins !!!
In Sustainable Building Design, therefore, Fire Resistance (a ‘passive’ protection concept) must not only be extended to consider a complementary relationship with ‘active’ fire protection concepts, but be stretched … ‘intelligently’ … to embrace the concept of ‘non-construction’ …
Building Sterile Space (Fire): An open space of sufficient and appropriate extent which is designed to retain an exceptionally low level of fire hazard and risk, and is ‘intelligently’ fitted with a suitable fire suppression system – in order to resist and control, for a specified time during a fire, the advance of heat, smoke and flame.
Fire Resistance: The inherent capability of a building assembly, or an element of construction, to resist the passage of heat, smoke and flame for a specified time during a fire.
.
.
END
European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup – Inaugural Meeting
On Wednesday afternoon, 24th February 2010, the URBAN InterGroup of the European Parliament met for the first time in the new Parliamentary Term … at 16.30 hrs … in Meeting Room 6Q2 of the Parliamentary Complex in Brussels, Belgium. Dr. Jan Olbrycht, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), chaired the proceedings. The attendance was large, and included a large proportion of the 50, or so, MEP’s who are directly involved with the InterGroup. Please forgive the jargon, but … many other URBAN InterGroup Partners, Sectoral Stakeholders and Interested Practitioners also attended. However … not one Irish MEP appears to show any interest in this important InterGroup. Why is that ?
Colour photograph showing the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, in Brussels, on 24th February 2010. The Meeting, chaired by Mr. Jan Olbrycht MEP, had a large attendance. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
I was very pleased to attend this Meeting, representing Sustainable Design International Ltd. (a Multi-Disciplinary Design & Research Practice in Europe, and a Micro-SME). Further to a series of interventions on my part, the following are some Comments on last Wednesday’s Meeting … and a few Suggestions …
1. Accountable & Representative Governance is an important component in the implementation of Sustainable Human and Social Development. It is not being too ambitious, therefore, to say that the URBAN InterGroup has an important task to fulfil within the ‘system’ of the European Parliament.
2. Within such a ‘system’ … it is a big advantage that the InterGroup’s Structure is informal and fluid. This allows the InterGroup to be cross-party and cross-committee at the Parliament … and to adopt a ‘flexible’ horizontal approach to Urban-Related Issues.
3. This same Horizontal Approach must, however, be applied to a proper consideration of the Urban Environment (City) itself … which is far more than the sum of its buildings, public spaces, transport systems, engineering infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and service utilities, etc., etc.
4. In order to deal effectively with Urban-Related Issues and the many different Sectoral Stakeholders … it is essential that the Intergroup discusses and develops a comprehensive and coherent vision of what exactly is a Sustainable Urban Environment (City). Please see the previous post on this Blog, dated 2010-03-02.
And … even though the regular InterGroup Meetings will be of short duration … it will be of great benefit to link small, individual issues to that larger, coherent vision. Then, and only then, will the InterGroup always know where it is … and, more importantly, in which direction it is travelling … in order to monitor progress.
5. It was not clear to me, at the Meeting, that the significant differences between the words ‘Sustainable’ and ‘Green’ are fully understood. This will cause problems for the InterGroup in the future, and should be examined in more detail.
The European Union (E.U.) Treaties refer to ‘Sustainable Development’ … not to ‘Greenness’ !!
6. It was also evident, at the Meeting, that there is a Lack of Communication between the European Parliament and the European Commission on Urban-Related Issues. Let me immediately say, however, that there is a worrying lack of communication (on any issue !) between the different Directorates-General within the Commission.
It must be a Priority for the InterGroup … a difficult one, I know … to have direct access to available Urban-Related Information … across all of the European Union’s Institutions. It is too wasteful of the InterGroup’s limited resources to be required to ‘re-invent wheels’ !
7. With regard to the URBAN InterGroup’s Work Programme … it is necessary to add a specific mention of the following Two Subjects:
(i) Proactive Climate Change Adaptation
Climate Change Adaptation, generally, encompasses actions to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
Urban Environment Climate Change Adaptation, more precisely, means … reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Urban Environment (City) … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.
Following detailed briefing meetings, in Dublin, from high-level participants in Copenhagen … the suggestion of this subject arises from what happened … or, more correctly, did not happen … to the European Union and its inadequate Climate Change Policies at the 2009 Climate Summit in December.
(ii) Accessibility for People with Activity Limitations (Personnes à Performances Réduites)
The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 3rd May 2008, i.e. it became an International Legal Instrument. European Union (E.U.) Member States are currently undertaking the process of ratifying this Convention at national level. At a certain stage in the near future, the Union (as a polity, post Lisbon Treaty) will certainly also ratify the Convention.
People with Activity Limitations now have a clearly defined right, under International Law, to be able to access and use the Urban Environment (City). They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building.
The InterGroup must fully take account of these rights ! This is no longer an option. In this regard and until now, the attitudes and performance of the E.U. Institutions has been nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace.
8. With regard to the Main Objectives of the URBAN InterGroup … it is necessary to add the following Preamble to those Objectives …
Adopting a long-term perspective, i.e. beyond the lifetime of any single parliamentary term … the Main Objectives of the InterGroup are to:
- monitor the legislative and non-legislative work of the European Parliament’s Committees on Urban-Related Issues ;
- work on common European Union Strategies – to put Urban Needs on the agenda of E.U. Policies ;
- be actively involved in the preparation of E.U. legislation ;
- constantly stay in contact with partners and practitioners ;
- be informed about the realization of E.U. Policies on the ground.
Please note well … that the short-term perspective of elected politicians, whether at European, National or Local Levels, is a Serious Impediment to the proper implementation of a Sustainable Urban Environment (City) !
.
.
END
Accessibility-for-All at the Brussels European Parliament ?!?!
Last Wednesday (2010-02-24), I was very pleased to be in Brussels to attend the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup for the New Parliamentary Term. Being very curious, however, there was no way … no way at all … that I could enter the Parliament Building without checking on a specific part of the Early Parliamentary Complex on Rue Wiertz … for any improvements to its past, woeful ‘accessibility’ performance. Please note that I am not referring, here, to transport issues … but to ‘accessibility’ for people with activity limitations.
.
Colour photograph showing the same dangerous external ramp/stair combination near the Main Public Entrance to the European Parliament Building, on Rue Wiertz, in Brussels. During rush hour periods of the working day, this ramp/stair combination is a very busy public pedestrian route. Click to enlarge. This photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24. For more photographs of this architectural 'gem', dating from 2000-2001, see SDI's Corporate WebSite.
.
Since the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities became an International Legal Instrument on 3rd May 2008 … people with activity limitations now have a clearly defined right, under international law, to be able to access and use the Built Environment. They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building. The language of the Convention is unusually strong.
Once upon a time … 9 or 10 years ago … at the beginning of this decade/century/millennium … a Properly Accessible Built Environment could only be wishful thinking. Yes, there was some legislation … usually very weak … at national level in the E.U. Member States … but nobody paid much attention to implementation. The least that could be expected, however, was that Iconic Buildings purposefully intended and designed for occupation by Institutions of the European Union would be examples of ‘good accessibility’ … as so much emphasis has always been placed in the E.U. Treaties, including the New Lisbon Treaty … on the foundation of the European Union being robustly rooted in Human and Social Rights for All … not just a privileged few, or a self-contented majority.
At this Page on Sustainable Design International’s Corporate WebSite … www.sustainable-design.ie/arch/inaccesseubuildings.htm … I recorded the dismal and depressing evidence on the ‘inaccessibility’ of both the Brussels and Strasbourg Parliament Buildings at that time.
.
Colour photograph showing the 'special' entrance reserved for 'personnes a mobilite reduite' in another part of the Brussels European Parliamentary Complex. It's too bad if someone who must use this facility cannot understand the incorrectly printed French ! Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
So … what has changed in the intervening years ? Have there been any improvements to a situation which I originally described as being ‘stupid and ridiculous’ ? [I won't bore you with all of the reasons why.] Or, are things worse ? Have we, in fact, entered into some unknown region of The Twilight Zone ? Arise again GUBU (Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented) !!
.
Colour photograph showing the Main Entrances associated with the 'special' entrance in the photograph above. They are located approximately 10 metres around the corner on a different side of the building. If the nosings of those steps have been highlighted in yellow, does that mean that these clumsy entrances are 'safe' ?? Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
Pinch yourselves, a few times, as you examine the photographs closely ! Try to remember that these buildings are not renovated or refurbished existing buildings. They were all designed and constructed, as ‘new’, on cleared sites within the city !!
.
Although Architects, the Brussels Local Authorities and the E.U. Institutions are primarily responsible for ‘inaccessibility’ of the Brussels European Parliament Building … we cannot afford to be smug or complacent in Ireland. Just look around you !
Again, once upon a time … towards the end of the 1980′s this time … I submitted the following Proposal for a Resolution on Accessibility-for-All to the Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) … please forgive the pre 2001 WHO ICF use of language and terminology …
Preamble
The elimination of architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled is an essential and preliminary condition for successful implementation of the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life.
Resolution
Celebrating the 150th year of its establishment, Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland asks all Members:-
(i) to note the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life ;
(ii) to eliminate as far as reasonably practicable, in the design of buildings, architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled.
Was this Resolution passed ? I’ll give you one guess ! The reason given, at the time, was that the Profession might be viewed as being culpable … which it was … and remains to this day. The source of this culpability, however, is most definitely the Schools of Architecture.
.
.
END
2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India – 8th & 9th January
It was a great pleasure to be invited to speak on the subject of Sustainable Fire Engineering at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India. This ground breaking conference in Asia took place at the India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, Delhi … on the 8th & 9th January last. Back during August (2009) in Bengaluru … the ACRECONF Chairman, Mr. Ashish Rakheja, told me that he expected an attendance of somewhere between 500-600 people at the Delhi Conference. Over the two days of the actual conference, approximately 1800 delegates participated … an enormous response by architects, civil and service engineers, developers, client and construction organizations, etc., etc., from right across the country … and from the deep south.
Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.
For me … refreshing, extremely impressive, and certainly the highlight of the conference … was a multi-media presentation … on the second morning, just after the coffee break … by Mr. Karan Grover, the renowned Indian Architect. He is quite an individual !
Before the break, delegates had been treated to an elaboration of the Environmental Design Innovations incorporated into the 71 storey Pearl River Tower (Guangzhou, China), by Mr. Varun Kohli of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in New York. Construction of the Tower is now well under way. Afterwards, however, an important discussion took place concerning the issue of fire safety, and fire engineering generally, in Sustainable Buildings. It became clear to all of the participants that this issue is a major oversight … an intentional gap … in the design of these buildings. I made the point, forcibly, that Sustainable Fire Engineering is open to innovation and design creativity. There will be an important follow-up to this discussion.
Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.
Unfortunately, the conference was peppered with references to ‘Green’ Buildings … an outdated marketing concept (!) … which, within its limited world-view, gives people the false comfort of not having to deal with thorny issues such as ‘social justice, solidarity & inclusion for all’. I have discussed this issue many times in previous posts.
Even more unfortunately, where the Brundtland Definition of ‘Sustainable Development’ was actually presented in one session … as usual, it was only the first half of the definition which made any appearance. The second, and more important, half of the definition had mysteriously vanished without trace … which made the whole effort a meaningless exercise ! What a waste !! No wonder there is such confusion over the concept … at all levels … in most countries !!!
It was not surprising, therefore, that what was not stressed enough, during the entire conference, was that Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc. The LEED Building Rating System (USA), for example, is not being properly adapted to local conditions in India !
A final issue … another major oversight … another intentional gap … in the design of buildings … Accessibility-for-All ! Even though India ratified the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1st October 2007 … this essential aspect of design … certainly in Sustainable Buildings … received no mention whatever during the conference … except by yours truly, in my presentation.
Overall … a magnificent achievement for the organizers !
.
.
END
Yesterday’s Burj Dubai Inauguration – The Tallest ?? How ?
Yesterday (2010-01-04), the Burj Dubai … recently renamed the Burj Khalifa, in honour of Abu Dhabi’s Ruler … was inaugurated. Dubayy, as it is known locally, is situated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Contrary to most reports, this building has a height of approximately 550 metres !
Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ? Click to enlarge.
Every single metre counts in the race of the ‘tallest’ ! So, the timing of the following CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, back in November 2009, was most fortunate. In my opinion, the most meaningful height criterion is … Height to Occupied Floor. But, what do you think ? See below.
However … purposefully tripping you up as you race to read all about the height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings … we should all know and understand, I hope, that comparing the ‘size’ of structural members is a silly schoolboy’s game. So, I would like to pose Some Important Questions (discussed, ad nauseam, in previous posts) about the Burj Khalifa Tower …
- Dubayy (Dubai) is a crude reproduction of the nightmare that is the 20th Century North American City, i.e. it is on the opposite end of the scale from being ‘sustainable’ ! ’Greenwashing’ aside … How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?
- There is no effective system, in Dubayy, of Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction by Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) or Competent Technical Controllers …
How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower … for All of the large population, including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), who will undoubtedly be using/occupying the building during its long life cycle ?
Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ? ’Robustness’ and ‘Disproportionate Damage’ are separate, but related, structural concepts.
During my next visit to Dubayy … I will enjoy looking at, and photographing, the completed building. But, I will not be entering the Burj Khalifa Tower !
.
Chicago, 2009-11-17: The Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) – the international body which arbitrates on tall building height and determines the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ – has announced a change to its height criteria, as a reflection of recent developments with several super-tall buildings.
The new criteria wording – ‘Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance to …’ allows for the recognition of the increasing numbers of multi-use tall buildings with often several different entrances at different levels, whilst also accommodating buildings constructed in non-traditional urban or suburban locations. The CTBUH Height Committee has determined that the previous description of where to measure tall building height from – ‘Height is measured from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to …’ is now no longer sufficient.
This will have an impact on both the height of tall buildings and their relative international height rankings. Burj Dubai, set to open as the world’s tallest building in January 2010, will now be measured from the lowest of its three main entrances (which opens into the entrance lobby for the tower’s corporate suite office function), while the recently completed Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago will be measured from the lower, publicly accessible Chicago Riverwalk. In the case of Trump, this additional 9 metres (approx.) means that it will surpass the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai to occupy the rank of 6th tallest on the current list of completed buildings.
“Beginning in 2007, with the knowledge that Burj Dubai would be significantly taller than any structure ever built, the CTBUH Height Committee met to review the criteria by which we recognize and rank the height of buildings”, said Peter Weismantle, Chair of the CTBUH Height Committee and Director of Supertall Building Technology at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture in Chicago. “As one might guess, with the committee being made up of architects, engineers, contractors, developers, building owners and academics, a variety of opinions and views were expressed. The resulting revisions, almost two years later, reflect a general consensus of the committee in recognizing the most recent trends in tall building development around the world.”
Also in response to the changing designs and forms of tall buildings, the Height Committee has elected to discard its previous ‘Height to Roof’ Category. “The roof category just doesn’t make sense anymore”, said CTBUH Executive Director Antony Wood. “In the era of the flat-topped modernist tower, a clearly defined roof could usually be identified, but in today’s tall building world – which is increasingly adopting elaborate forms, spires, parapets and other features at the top of the building – it is becoming difficult to determine a ‘roof’ at all, even less so to measure to it.”
Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010. Click to enlarge.
The Revised CTBUH Height Criteria and Diagrams of the Tallest 10 Buildings in the World as of November 2009 can be found here, ranked according to the three height categories now recognized by CTBUH. These are: (i) Height to Architectural Top, measured to the topmost architectural feature of the building including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment; (ii) Height to Highest Occupied Floor, measured to the level of the highest, consistently occupied floor in the building (thus not including service or mechanical areas which experience occasional maintenance access); and (iii) Height to Tip, measured to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element.
.
.
END
COP-15: Historical Responsibility & Poverty Reduction ?
‘Chaotic’ is not the only word to describe what is happening right now in Copenhagen ! A few additional parliamentary expletives are required. Is it just me … or is it obvious to everyone … that the Danes could not organize an orgy at an International Golf Tournament ?
What the world urgently needed was an ambitious, legally binding agreement … a Kyoto II Protocol, for want of a better title … to slot into place when the 1st Commitment Period ends in 2012. What we may end up with is an ambiguous ‘political’ agreement … which will be worth approximately 1 cent more than the paper on which it will be scrawled.
There is something definitely rotten in the State of Denmark ! Multiple drafts of the same working document circulating at the same time … backroom meetings away from public scrutiny … greedy developed countries trying to avoid responsibility and action … strutting, self-important NGO’s thinking that they know all the answers … etc., etc … kill any confidence in the process stone dead. These are not the ways of Sustainable Social Partnership.
However … at a far distance from the hustle and bustle … it can be observed that Interesting Side Events are taking place … and Thought Provoking Reports are being presented … before, during and after the main gatherings between the 7th and 18th December 2009:
- 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ;
- 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP-5) to the Kyoto Protocol.
African Countries are not the only Group having difficulty with what is/is not happening in Copenhagen.
Two recent Discussion Papers from The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI), in India, are worth bringing to your attention. Both raise issues which are not very popular in this part of the world. And … it so happens that Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, Director-General of TERI … is also Chairman of the WMO-UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) !
- Right to Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach to Climate Change (December 2009), by Leena Srivastava, Neha Pahuja, Manish Shrivastava & Prabhat Upadhyay. PDF File, 228kb. Click link to read and/or download. Discusses ideas such as: ‘equity’, ‘fairness’, ‘historical responsibility’ (of UNFCCC Annex I Countries), ‘climate justice’, etc.
- Linking Climate Action & Poverty Alleviation – An Approach to Informed Decision-Making (December 2009), by Atul Kumar. PDF File, 488kb. Click link to read and/or download.
Notes:
To gain worldwide acceptance – across developed, developing and least developed regions of the world – and to have a reasonable chance of reliable implementation in those disparate regions … mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, including variability and extremes, must be fully compatible with the concept of Sustainable Human & Social Development. This is clearly elaborated in both the 1992 UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
To be clear among ourselves on this island … Ireland is specifically named (without any qualification), among other Developed Countries … in Annex I and Annex II of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) … and in Annex B of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is legally binding. The European Union is not mentioned, at all, in either document.
It is of concern to note that although India ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in October 2007 – TERI (India) has very recently placed a Document (No.1 above) in the public domain, at Copenhagen, which actively forbids content extraction by people with activity limitations for the purposes of equitable accessibility ! Joined-up thinking !?!?
END
Emergency Planning For ALL & Special Needs Populations ?
On 15th August 2008, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in association with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, published Comprehensive Preparedness Guide #301: ‘Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations’.
What follows are important extracts from CPG #301. As you slowly read along … consider the chaotic, clapped-out and ramshackle response, at national level, to the Flood Emergency in Ireland …
Throughout the history of Emergency Management Planning, considerations for Special Needs Populations have often been inadequate. From the 1930′s, when disaster response was ad hoc and largely focused on the repair of damaged infrastructure, through to the present day, emergency management culture of ‘readiness’, special needs populations were often given insufficient consideration. This fact was evident in 2003 during the California wildfires and when Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005. During these events, some individuals with special needs did not receive appropriate warning, were unable to access shelters, or went without medical intervention. During the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review, a sample of emergency management plans was reviewed by subject-matter experts on disability and ageing. The review confirmed that emergency plans from various regions in the United States continue to overlook these populations. The Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report concluded that “substantial improvement is necessary to integrate people with disabilities into emergency planning and readiness”.
Numerous ‘lessons learned’ reports that followed Hurricane Katrina also pointed out that there is a large segment of the U.S. population who may not be able to successfully plan for, and respond to, an emergency with resources typically accessible to the general population. The current general population is one that is diverse, ageing, and focused on maintaining independence as long as possible. The popularity of living situations that provide an ‘as needed’ level of care in the least restrictive manner is fast becoming the norm. Consideration should therefore be given to people who may be able to function independently under normal situations, but who may need assistance in an emergency situation.
For example, it is estimated that about 13 million individuals aged 50 years or older in the United States will need evacuation assistance, and about half of these individuals will require such assistance from someone outside of their household. There are well over 1 million people in the United States receiving home healthcare according to 2000 data cited by the National Center for Health Care Statistics. Populations such as these should be considered when emergency plans are developed to accurately assess the resources needed to adequately respond when a disaster strikes. The 2000 Census reported that 18% of those surveyed speak a language other than English at home. This highlights the need to ensure the effectiveness of emergency communications. Populations described as ‘transportation disadvantaged’ – those who do not have access to a personal vehicle or are precluded from driving – may also require assistance during emergencies. The 2000 Census reports that in the top ten car-less cities, between 29% and 56% of the households are without a vehicle. These examples serve to demonstrate community emergency planning should go beyond traditional considerations.
During the Nationwide Plan Review, Emergency Managers consistently requested technical assistance in identifying and incorporating special needs populations into emergency planning. As described later, defining the term ‘special needs’ is a critical initial step in the planning process. The Federal Government introduced, within the National Response Framework (NRF), a definition of special needs populations that State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local governments may adopt for use in their Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) development. It is important to note that though this terminology may appear ambiguous, it is well established in the Emergency Management Vocabulary and when clearly defined, strengthens the planning process.
Although it is recognized that significant emergency planning should be done for incarcerated populations, these groups cannot be integrated into general population planning. Individuals in correctional settings are institutionalized to protect other members of society; people who are institutionalized in health related settings are there for their own protection and wellbeing. Emergency management planning for incarcerated populations requires additional consideration such as law enforcement and co-ordination between emergency managers, the Department of Corrections, and prison superintendents to ensure safety of the prisoners and the public. For these reasons, incarcerated populations are not included in the NRF definition of ‘special needs’, which is the same definition used in this Planning Guide.
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) CPG #301
Date: 15 August 2008. PDF File, 301kb.
Interim Emergency Management Planning Guide for Special Needs Populations
Click the link above to read and/or download CPG #301
Emergency Management takes into consideration planning for the safety of every person in the community during and following a disaster. Taking into consideration populations historically considered ‘vulnerable’, ‘at risk’, or ‘special needs’, ultimately improves the overall community’s post-disaster sustainability.
Before drafting Emergency Plans, it is recommended that a state-wide definition for the term ‘special needs’ be developed and used to guide State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local jurisdictions in the planning process. A consistent use of terminology will result in improved communication and co-ordination of resources across State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local entities.
The NRF Definition for ‘special needs’ provides a function-based approach for planning and seeks to establish a flexible framework that addresses a broad set of common function-based needs, irrespective of specific diagnosis, statuses, or labels (e.g. children, older people, transportation disadvantaged, etc.). In other words, this function-based definition reflects the capabilities of the individual, not the condition or label. Governments that choose to align their language to the NRF definition will improve inter-government communication during an incident.
The Definition of Special Needs Populations, as it appears in the U.S. National Response Framework (NRF) is as follows:
Populations whose members may have additional needs before, during, and after an incident in functional areas, including but not limited to:
- Maintaining Independence ;
- Communication ;
- Transportation ;
- Supervision ;
- Medical Care.
Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who have disabilities; who live in institutionalized settings; who are elderly; who are children; who are from diverse cultures; who have limited English proficiency; or who are non-English speaking; or who are transportation disadvantaged.
[The concept of a function-based approach to defining special needs populations has been developed by June Isaacson Kailes. See Kailes, J. and Enders, A. in "Moving Beyond ‘Special Needs’: A Function-Based Framework for Emergency Management Planning". Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol./No. 44/2007. Pages 230-237.]
At first glance, it may appear that each of the above groups (and a disproportionately large percentage of the population) is automatically classified as having special needs, but this is not the case. The definition indicates these groups may often include individuals who have special needs and, in the event of an emergency, may need additional assistance or specialized resources. For example, in a city like New York where less than half of all households own a car, transportation-dependence is not necessarily a ‘special need’. A special need in this instance is an inability to access the transportation alternatives defined by the Emergency Operation Plan (EOP). It is important to remember that special needs populations have needs that extend beyond those of the general population.
The definition focuses on the following function-based aspects:
- Maintaining Independence – Individuals requiring support to be independent in daily activities may lose this support during an emergency or a disaster. Such support may include consumable medical supplies (baby diapers, formula, bandages, continence supplies, etc.), durable medical equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc.), service animals, and/or attendants or caregivers. Supplying needed support to these individuals will enable them to maintain their pre-disaster level of independence.
- Communication – Individuals who have limitations which interfere with the receipt of and response to information will need that information provided in format they can understand and use. They may not be able to hear verbal announcements, see directional signs, or understand how to get assistance due to hearing, vision, speech, cognitive, or intellectual limitations, and/or limited English proficiency.
- Transportation – Individuals who cannot drive or who do not have a vehicle may require transportation support for successful evacuation. This support may include accessible vehicles (e.g., lift-equipped or vehicles suitable for transporting individuals who use oxygen) or information about how and where to access mass transportation during an evacuation.
- Supervision – Before, during, and after an emergency individuals may lose the support of caregivers, family, or friends or may be unable to cope in a new environment (particularly if they have dementia, Alzheimer’s or psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia or intense anxiety). If separated from their caregivers, young children may be unable to identify themselves; and when in danger, they may lack the cognitive ability to assess the situation and react appropriately.
- Medical Care – Individuals who are not self-sufficient or who do not have adequate support from caregivers, family, or friends may need assistance with: managing unstable, terminal or contagious conditions which require observation and ongoing treatment; managing intravenous therapy, tube feeding, and vital signs; receiving dialysis, oxygen, and suction administration; managing wounds; and operating power-dependent equipment to sustain life. These individuals require support of trained medical professionals.
The above examples illustrate function-based needs that may exist within the community.
Important Conclusions for Ireland & Europe Generally:
1. The innovative approach taken to Special Needs Populations in U.S. FEMA Comprehensive Preparedness Guide #301 is entirely consistent with European concepts of ‘mainstreaming’, ‘accessibility for all’, ‘fire safety, protection and evacuation for all’, etc … and the widespread, standardized and consistent use of the language and terminology in the 2001 World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health (ICF) … an approach which I have long advocated across Europe.
2. Fragmentation of the Irish Special Needs Population, dissention between different groups within that population or a lack of willingness to work with other groups … the use of far too many ad-hoc labels … and the anarchic abuse of disability-related language and terminology … pose a grave risk to the Safety, Health and Wellbeing of all these groups in Emergencies, whether large or small scale … and create unnecessary, and sometimes insurmountable, barriers to effective communication and the proper co-ordination of emergency response resources. This problem is deep-rooted and endemic throughout Europe.
3. French use of the words, e.g. ‘les handicapés’, ‘les invalides’, is both outdated and barbaric. Similarly, German use of the word ‘die behinderten’ is unacceptable. A concerted effort, at European level, must be made to modernize and harmonize the use of disability-related terminology in our many different languages. Large Scale Emergencies in Europe, involving 2, 3 or more E.U. Member States, require … as a priority … effective communication and the proper co-ordination of emergency response resources.
END
Search
Recent Comments
- 'Climate' Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ? | 'A … | Indonesia Day on ‘Climate’ Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ?
- Catherine on Murphy Commission Report on Child Sexual Abuse in Dublin
- Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN … | Algeria news on Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN
- Harmonized Indicators of Building GHG & Energy Performance | 'A … | Go Low Energy on Harmonized Indicators of Building GHG & Energy Performance
- Older People in Emergencies – Action & Policy Development (II … | DisabilityKit.Com on Older People in Emergencies – Action & Policy Development (II)
Categories
- architecture
- art
- built environment
- cinema
- climate change
- economic environment
- eu law
- european union
- fire
- human & social rights
- human environment
- human health
- institutions
- international law
- judicial
- media
- national law
- natural environment
- photography
- politics
- regulations & standards
- social environment
- sustainability
- technical control
- travel
- virtual environment
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Links
- 'Spirit of Ireland' Project – National Energy Independence. At last … some 'real' Innovation in this country !
- 2bscene Web Design – Ireland
- AL JAZEERA – News & Views from the ARAB WORLD (1431 H)
- ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
- Amnesty International – Irish Section
- CJ Walsh: Architectural, Design & Technical Control Practice (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Contact Us – Sustainable Design International Ltd. (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Cuba Support Group – Ireland
- Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) – Ireland
- E-PRTR – European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register … a Europe-wide register providing easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in EU Member States and in Iceland, Liechtenstein & Norway.
- EL NACIONAL – News & Views from VENEZUELA
- EU Fundamental Rights Agency – The Agency focuses on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (EU) and its 27 Member States.
- EUR-Lex – Full, direct and free access to all European Union (EU) Legislation
- FireOx International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey
- GRANMA INTERNACIONAL – News & Views from CUBA
- HÜRRİYET – News & Views from TURKEY
- Ireland – Information about our Public Institutions, including Pretty Pictures of our green countryside !
- James Taylor – Singer & Songwriter
- JOURNAL DE BRASÍLIA – News & Views from BRAZIL
- Kanchi (Ireland) – Changing Society's View of Disability for the Better
- NAVBHARAT TIMES – News & Views (in Hindi) from INDIA
- PRAVDA – News & Views from RUSSIA
- Robert F Kennedy Centre for Justice & Human Rights (USA)
- Rocky Mountain Institute (USA) – Super Energy Efficiency by Design
- RTE Lyric FM – Classical (in its widest meaning !) Music on Irish Radio
- Senator Shane Ross – Ireland's Principal Economics Troubleshooter. What happened to George ?
- Survivors of Institutional Abuse Ireland [SOIAI] – WE (collectively) did not cherish all the children of OUR nation equally !
- Sustainable Design International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey
- Tom Doyle's Blog :: TALK
- UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) + Kyoto Protocol + COP-15
- United Nations Human Rights Council – Established 15 March 2006
- WISE – Water Information System for Europe … a single location (portal) where geographically-mapped information on water-related issues can be found for the whole of Europe.
- XINHUA News Agency – News & Views from CHINA