Mohamed, I F; Edwards, D J; Mateo-Garcia, M; Costin, G and Thwala, W D D (2020) An investigation into the construction industry's view on fire prevention in high-rise buildings post Grenfell. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 38(3), pp. 451-471. ISSN 23984708
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore contemporary attitudes amongst UK construction professionals regards fire safety post the Grenfell Tower disaster. Specifically, the research examines practitioner’s perceptions of fire safety design, material specification, construction and maintenance of high-rise blocks throughout a building’s whole life cycle. Design/methodology/approach: A multi-methodology approach was adopted that utilises a mix of research methods. Extant literature and media content is used as a secondary data source, providing a more insightful interpretivist analysis – the results of which guided the development of the survey’s main question set. Primary survey data are sourced from structured interviews and questionnaires completed by participating industry professionals and built environment undergraduate students using non-representative sampling methods. In addition, a Grenfell Tower special advisory panel member was interviewed to add further validity to the overall findings. Findings: The quantitative findings present evidence to suggest that the Grenfell disaster (and media storm that has surrounded this event) has raised the general level of fire safety knowledge and competency amongst construction professionals. However, qualitative feedback from the special advisory panel member suggests specific fire prevention knowledge remains elusive within both industry and taught programmes at Higher Education Institutes. As a consequence, changes in the taught curriculum are proposed together with an extension of the role of facilities managers in practice to cover fire safety in greater depth. Originality/value: This paper provides thoughtful insights into the contemporary discourse on fire safety within the UK construction industry. The research also provides critical suggestions to both industry and policy makers which seek to prevent a repeat tragedy occurring again.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cladding; grenfell fire; high rise; legislation; regulations |
| Index terms: | construction industry, prevention, cladding, fire safety, undergraduate, construction professional, investigation, sampling, media, built environment, secondary data, higher education, validity, whole life cycle, high-rise building, high rise, methodology, questionnaire, evidence, facilities manager, regulation, practitioner, programme, survey, interview, legislation, specification |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, political science, project controls, sociology, educational institutions, contractual condition, health safety and environment, financial risk, professional development, sustainability assessment, research methods, legal systems, curriculum development, building materials, practitioner, construction type, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Education, Time Control, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here