Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Due to the economic importance of tourism for countries such as Spain, a careful study of all of the factors that may affect its structure, development, competitiveness, quality and image is called for. The sector’s importance in the Spanish economy is not an isolated phenomenon; tourism, technology and communications are at the forefront of world trade [1].
According to data from the World Tourism Organisation, international tourist arrivals reached 983 million in 2011 and continue to grow at a rate of 4%, underlining the importance of tourism worldwide. The impact that these figures have on some countries, such as Spain, is clear considering that only 10 countries (see Table 1) account for almost half the international tourism demand worldwide, and Spain, with 60.7 million international tourists is ranked third [2]. The magnitude and the strategic nature of this sector in Spain is evident. In 2011 it accounted for 10.8% of GDP, provided net revenues of 32,425 million Euros, as measured in the balance of payments, and also represented 12.2% of national employment [3]. To fully understand the extent of this matter the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism’s Institute of Tourism Studies has provided some figures for the national hotel sector. In 2012 there were 19,149 hotels with 1,838,958 beds, and a total of 83,182,533 tourists, of which 43,047,776 were Spanish residents and 40,134,757 came from abroad [4].
This leads us to the conclusion that encouraging fire protection safety in the tourism sector around the world is vital not only for safety, but also economic security. In fact, fire damage and fire protection worldwide represent significant costs that the Geneva Association [5] classifies under six headings: damage caused by fire, indirect damage, loss of life, cost of fire-fighting organisations, costs related to fire insurance and fire protection for buildings. The World Fire Statistic Bulletin provides global figures for the direct economic costs and human losses caused by fires in general (see Table 2).
If we focus on fires that have occurred in hotels, available data show that human, material and economic losses are high both in Spain [6] and the rest of the world. For example, fire departments in the U.S. responded to an estimated average of 3,700 structure fires per year at hotel or motel properties from 2006 to 2010 [7]. Annually these fires causedan average of 12 civilian deaths, 143 civilian injuries, and losses of $127 million in direct property damage [7]. In Europe the hotel industry is an important driver of the labour market, with over 250,000 hotels, nearly 15 million beds and some 2 million workers. However,comparable data for fire events in all European countries is not available. The absence of such data can be attributed to the fact there is little incentive for hotel owners and municipalities to provide this information since reported fires, particularly in holiday areas, can damage the reputation of an establishment or tourist destination [8]. Nevertheless, authors such as Kemola recognize the important implications of fires in European hotel establishments [9]. In the case of Spain no conclusive data is available on the number of fires in hotels. However, Ministry of Employment and Social Security statistics show that 240 workers from the hotel industry were injured in firesfrom 2003 to 2012 [10]. In that period 8 workers were seriously injured, 5 were very seriously injured, and one died.
It should be noted that other authors have also recognized that the number of reported fires in hotels only represents a small partof the total [8]. Whatever the case, it is clear that any building of this nature, regardless of the category its been awarded, for example in the commonly used 1 to 5 “star” rating system [11], is not completely safe from fire and the final consequences will depend on its safetyconditions. Proof of this is the report presented at the Fourth International Forum on Fire Safety in Hotels [12], where different cases were presented that occurred in the summer of 2010 both in Spain: Hotel Ritz***** (Madrid), Hotel Hesperia Playa Dorada**** (Tenerife), Hotel Miraolas*** (Asturias), Hotel Brasil** (Alicante), Hotel Balear Beach* (Mallorca); and in the rest of the world: Victoria Hotel in Skelmersdale (UK),Soma Hotel (Iraq), Hotel Caribean Paradise**** (Mexico), Hotel Patagonia Plaza**** (Argentina), Caribbean Hilton Hotel***** (Puerto Rico), Willard Intercontinental Hotel (USA), and Imperial Hotel***** (Japan). The variables that play a part in the causes of hotel fires, how they spread and the steps taken to fight them are many and varied [13]. They include the age, size and type of premises, access and evacuation routes, the characteristics of the building, the availability of alarm systems and their type, fire-fighting equipment, evacuation or personal protection equipment. It is not easy, therefore, to describe the state of fire safety in the sector. However, the applicable legislation to prevent hotel fires is considered an essential element to guarantee user and worker safety. Thus, in its report of 27 June 2001 the European Commission was already drawing attention to deficiencies in this area by highlighting the failure to comply with EEC Recommendation 86/666 on fire safety in hotels [14]. Yet it is interesting to note that fire safety requirements in hotels not only vary between the countries in the European Union but also differ significantly from those in countries like the United States. For example, as an indication of the importance given by the U.S. government to the presence of fire prevention measures in hotels, when travelling on official business federal agents are required to spend at least 90% of travel nights at hotels listed in the federal register of approved accommodation. Similarly, the United States Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act (PL 101-391) was approved by the U.S. Congress in order to save lives and protect hotel property. This law is applicable to all places providing accommodation to the public and requires all rooms in hotels more than three stories high to be equipped with smoke detectors and automatic sprinklers [15]. In contrast “sprinkler systems are not common in European hotels” and, according to Stewart Kidd of the British Automatic Sprinkler Association, it is estimated that less than 3% of European hotels have automatic sprinkler systems in their rooms. A certain degree of unification in legislative goals is, therefore, desirable [16].
In view of the frequency of fires in hotels and the serious impact it can have in both human and economic terms, research in this field is clearly important. Thus, prior to the research presented in this report, the authors carried out a field study of fire safety in hotels based on a technical and documentary analysis of their fire prevention systems. Among other points it was concluded that safety standards were influenced by the location of the hotel (cities, beach/tourist resort or rural/isolated areas), but were not significantly affected by the hotel’s category, based on the 1 to 5 “star” rating system used in Spain [11].It was also observed that as hotels increased in size, fire prevention tended to be better [13].
In light of the results obtained in the previous study mentioned above, it was decided that a quantitative-qualitative study should be conducted, which would enable us to compare the conclusions of the earlier quantitative study with the opinions of experts in the field, the ultimate goal being to prioritize certain strategic lines of action to improve fire safety protection conditions in hotel establishments.
Material and methods
Study participants
The study was carried out using the staticized group technique [17]. Methodologically, this technique is very similar to the Delphi method, but in the staticized group technique there are no iterations and the experts do not have access to the group’sresponses to avoid any influence on their views [18]. Some comparative studies on the application of both methods found no substantial differences in their degree of accuracy [19, 20]. Other studies, however, showed a significant increase in the use of the staticized group technique as it is considered to be more accurate than using the Delphi method [21, 22]. Based on this, it was decided to use the staticized technique to conduct this study.
The staticized group technique was applied in individual personal interviews with a panel of 15 experts in fire safety. This number of experts is considered sufficient when using group techniques to provide qualitative-quantitative information [23].
The interviews were conducted by the authors of this research from October 2007 to July 2009.
It was considered desirable for the experts to be as representative as possible and to belong to different groups in the fire prevention field, both from the viewpoint of their training and professional experience and their geographical origins [24]. The objective was to obtain a broad view of the situation in Spain from the perspective of representative professional groups which are directly linked to fire prevention. These include: Technical Experts working for the Spanish central government and the governments of Spain’s autonomous regions, Technical Managers of monitoring bodies authorised by the government to conduct inspections of fire prevention systems, Technical Managers of private companies engaged in fire prevention, Technical Officers from different Fire Extinction and Rescue Services (SEI), Safety Project Heads from engineering companies engaged in fire prevention, University staff of recognised standing in the field of fire prevention and Managers and technical staff belonging to professional fire fighting associations.
Thus, the safety experts were chosen based on the following criteria: qualifications in the area of fire safety, more than 10 years professional experience in fire safety, position held is related to fire safety and geographical location of fire safety experience.
The fire safety experts were approached through personal contacts in different public administrations and the 15 professionals in Table 3 agreed to participate in this research. The personal interviews and the questionnaires were conducted from 2007 to 2009.
Study instruments
A questionnaire was specifically designed for the purpose, based on the results obtained in the previous research study [13]. This previous research involved visits to a total of 146 hotels in 2004. In order to examine the fire safety of these facilities we made use of the official checklist of the responsible Spanish administrative body, which contains the documentary and technical requirements contained in the current fire protection regulations for buildings in Spain.
The questionnaire (see Table 4) contained 10 questions classified into 4 groups. The first nine were answered by the experts on a scale of 1 to 5, based on the Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree”; 2: “disagree”; 3: “neutral”; 4: “agree”; 5: “strongly agree”). The tenth question asked them to rank by order of importance a series of measures to improve fire safety in hotels.
Study design
This research was conducted by interviewing human subjects and a combined quantitative and qualitative approach was applied [24, 25]. The authors of the study completed the quantitative part of the questionnaire based on the answers provided by the participating experts who were asked to respond using a 5 point Likert scale [26]. The experts also provided free-text responses for each question, which were transcribed by the researchers in order to conduct a qualitative analysis [27, 28] that would help strengthen the quantitative results.
Statistical analysis
SPSS V.15.0 was used for the statistical analysis. First a descriptive analysis was applied with measures of central tendency and location including mean, median and mode, plus measures of variability and dispersion including the standard deviation and quartiles. Subsequently, an inferential analysis based on a t-test was conducted to check the agreement with the statements of each questionnaire item under these hypothesis: Ho: Expert agree/strongly agree with the statement. H1: Expert do not agree/strongly agree with the statement.
The statistical significance threshold was set at p < 0.05.
Results and discussion
The results of the descriptive statistical analysis ofthe responses obtained from the interviews shows a high degree of consistency among the expert with regard to the current state of fire safety installations (items 1 to 3), influence of establishment characteristics (items 4 to 7), application of regulations (items 7 to 9) and priority of actions (item 10). These results are shown in Table 5.
The experts agreed or strongly agreed only with the statements related to the application of regulations, in the relation higher hotel category-higher safety, and in the need for regular inspections with penalties in the event of non-compliance.
Moreover, a selection of comments made by the experts during the interviews are included to better illustrate the main findings and to facilitate the reading and understanding of the results.They have been classified into 4 subsections: current state of installations, influence of establishment characteristics, application of regulations and priority ranking of actions.
Current state of installations
Regarding whether respondents consider fire safety in Spanish hotels to be satisfactory, the median and mode is three, very close to the mean (2.87). This result confirms the opinion that the situation is only minimally acceptable. The experts point out that, although the application of the regulations and the theoretical initial state of the systems are acceptable when they are new, issues such as day-to-day management, raising awareness of fire safety,systems maintenance and staff training do not reach the minimum standard necessary to maintain those initial conditions. Some experts are especiallycritical of the “perceived sense of safety”, pointing out that “in a real emergency these systems do not
work because they are inadequate, staff are not properly trained, and buildings are badly designed, that is, they are not correctly compartmentalised and they are unable to dissipate smoke, gases and heat in the event of a fire”.
Regarding the correct design and use of the fire prevention systems in hotels and their maintenance, the results are underscored by the observations made by the experts. They insist that greater attention must be paid to system design and implementation, and relevant government bodies need to apply stricter monitoring and inspection measures. They point to “government bodies’ inability to monitor adequately” and indicate that “system maintenance is not always carried out by the best companies but by those which provide the cheapest service”. These findings echo the conclusions of the previous study by the authors of this paper [13], which found that 20% of the systems analysed showed maintenance defects in fire hose cabinets and 22.6% of them lacked smoke detectors in bedrooms and corridors.
Influence of establishment characteristics
The fourth question asked whether the respondents agreed that fire prevention systems in hotels and their maintenance vary according to their type and location (cities, beach/tourist resorts, or more isolated areas) and the fifth question asked specifically if the best conditions were found in cities. The responses were very similar in the two cases, with a mean value of 3.07, although they are more spread out than in the case of the first question in the survey. Apart from the quantitative assessment given by the experts, their opinions centred on the fact that although the regulations are the same for everybody, their implementation varies from one scenario to another. According to the experts, this largely depends on the availability of adequate technical and human resources in the government bodies responsible for system surveillance and monitoring where the hotel is located. In this regard differences can be observed between large municipalities with more resources at their disposal and small towns where these are limited or even non-existent. A majority of the experts considered that city hotels were problematic because access and evacuation were difficult, their functioning and layout were complex, and some of them occupied very high buildings. Some felt that “small towns have fewer material and technical resources, which makes it impossible to monitor systems thoroughly”, while others thought that “the greatest difficulties regarding access to hotels and their evacuation are in cities”. One aspect that the experts consider crucial is the hotel management’s degree of safety awareness. They emphasized the fact that “large hotel chains are more concerned about these questions”.
Question six asked the experts if they believed that systems for fire prevention and their maintenance were better in hotels with a larger number of rooms and a majority disagreed with this statement (only 6 out of 15 agreed or strongly agreed). They felt that the state of fire prevention systems depended more on the owners’ interest than the size of the hotel. It must also be considered that larger hotel buildings may not favour fire safety for several reasons: greater distances must be covered during evacuation, and higher and larger buildings in general make dealing with a possible fire more difficult. However, they also pointed out that their greater size does oblige them to have systems to protect the building against large fires. At the same time the experts said that in many cases large hotels belong to prestigious companies and large hotel chains. In order to maintain their standing or to be able to sign contracts with tour operators, they often feel obliged to have effective and properly maintained fire prevention systems, leading to better fire safety conditions. Consequently, the experts emphasise that the awareness of the owners and the attitude of the hotel’s managers have a greater influence than the size of the hotel.
For question seven, which asked if they agreed with the statement that the higher the category of thehotel (number of stars), the better the fire prevention system will be, the average of the responses was 3.67. The median and mode corresponded to answer 4 (“agree”), chosen by 9 out of the 15 people interviewed. The experts made a number of additional comments on this question, pointing out that “a higher category hotel necessarily involves the existence of more services and larger premises (kitchens, saunas, shops, event rooms, etc.), which implies the existence of additional risks”. Another point mentioned previously is that large hotels, which in many cases are part of big hotel chains, have better systems because they have a specific interest in offering good facilities. It was also pointed out that the proper maintenance of the systems, which is a basic factor in fire safety, is often conducted more efficiently in higher category hotels, although “this does not mean that all lower category hotels do not adequately maintain the condition of their fire safety systems”. Higher category hotels will be more inclined to participate in the Safe hotel programme, in which independent inspectors assess the suitability of their safety systems. This fact would support the idea that higher category hotels have better fire prevention systems. Many hotels in different countries have taken part in this initiative, financed by the European Commission via the Leonardo Da Vinci programme. Most of them belong to major hotel chains, and are usually higher category hotels, reflecting a tendency for such hotels to show more concern and be more proactive concerning fire safety.
Application of regulations
Question eight asks whether respondents believe it is necessary for all hotels, including those in old buildings, to be obliged to comply with the latest legislation concerning fire safety. In Spain this is the new Technical Building Code, enacted in 2006 [29]. It should be pointed out that this particular legislation allows greater flexibility in the design of buildings, as it moves from strictly prescriptive regulations to regulations based on performance, inspired by the European Union’s New Approach Resolution and in line with current construction trends in neighbouring countries. Most of the experts agreed with the statement, making this question the one with the highest level of consensus in the study. Their legal and technical comments on this question and those concerning safety indicate that applying the rules retroactively could conflict with some fundamental principles of constitutional law. The experts also pointed out that it seems logical to favour other principles such as general interest or the protection of life and safety, rather than regulations which cannot be applied retroactively. They emphasised that this retroactive application could be implemented in a similar way to occupational risk prevention, where equipment must often be brought into line with regulations even when it was manufactured before the regulations were approved. They thus consider that the most appropriate policy, in the general interest and to minimize the impact on the owners and managers of buildings, would be to customize the modifications for each hotel. This would involve the implementation of important technical advances in fire safety from the Technical Building Code [29], but not if they are excessively complex or technically unviable. For example, Technical Building Code specifications for the main structure of the building, the maximum allowed area for each fire sector, or evacuation routes and ceiling heights may run into major difficulties if they are to be implemented in existing buildings. In such cases the view of the experts is that supplementary measures should be studied. These should be imaginative and adapted to individual cases with a view to providing equivalent performance without the need for impossible changes. In connection with these comments, question ten below asked the experts to prioritize measures for fire safety. The majority indicated that the top priority should be compliance by hotels with current regulations, highlighting the need for hotel premises and their fire safety systems to be in line with new legislation.
Answers given by the experts to the ninth question regarding whether compliance with regulatory requirements for fire prevention in hotels varies from one place to another, depending on how strictly they are applied by the relevant government body, also showed a high degree of consensus. Of the 15 respondents, 7 declared that they “strongly agreed” with the statement, 5 of them were in agreement and only 3 of them were indifferent to the statement. In their comments they identified various factors related to this issue. The first has to do with legislation; although the basic legislation is the same for all, each region, and even each local council, can draw up additional requirements. This can lead to situations in which different authorities “play a greater or lesser role in applying regulations and ensuring compliance with them”, thus generating a certain inequality in how strictly the regulations are enforced. Another aspect is the human and technical resources the relevant government body has at its disposal to verify projects, their implementation, and subsequent monitoring. The experts appear to agree that when the fire service is involved in the process of granting permits, instead of other technical bodies which are not fire specialists, the regulations are more strictly applied. Indeed, there are experts who consider that “generally speaking Spanish government bodies are unable to exercise sufficient control”. The experts consulted also generally agree that the correct design, implementation and maintenance of systems should be part of safety awareness in the sector. The comprehensive, permanent task of monitoring and inspection should not be left to government bodies. An appeal has to be made for responsibility by the sector itself (employers and staff). It should be emphasized that this is a matter that concerns everyone and that better safety standards make businesses more competitive.
Priority ranking of actions
Question ten asked the experts to rank by order of importance a list of ways to improve fire safety in hotels. The five options proposed were ordered as follows: Make sure all hotels meet current legal requirements. Strict monitoring of system maintenance. Appropriate ongoing training for hotel staff. Regular simulations or fire drills. Regular inspection with penalties in the event of non-compliance.
Where 1 is “Highest priority” and 5 is “Lowest priority”.
The following points in individual responses were also of interest. The responses, as reflected in the standard deviation values shown in Table 5, show a wider spread than for the other questions. It can be seen that all of the answers have similar mode values, which may be related to the different training and professional perspective of the participants. It can also be observed that certain professional groups place special emphasis on aspects which are seen as secondary by other respondents. For example, those experts whose work involves the extinction of fires stress the importance of conducting simulations or drills, improving the training of hotel staff and strictly monitoring the maintenance of fire prevention systems. As has already been mentioned, the top priority from the list to improve fire safety is compliance by hotels with current regulations; making sure they apply the stricter standards to bring them into line with the safety expectations of society. As pointed out above, this coincides with the results from question eight which asked if all hotels should be obliged to comply with current legislation. The responses to that question showed the highest level of agreement for all of the questions in the survey.
A limitation of this study is that this research is based on the opinions of Spanish fire safety experts. The specific regulations [30, 31] and circumstances in other countries [32, 33] could lead to different research results. To minimize this limitation it would be necessary to conduct equivalent research in other countries that would make it possible to draw global conclusions aimed at promoting international regulations to improve fire safety in hotels.
Conclusions
The majority view of the experts is that the gradual modification of older hotels to comply with current regulations is essential to improve fire safety in those buildings. Since the retroactive nature of the legislation may be contrary to fundamental legal principles and not feasible in economic and technical terms, but at the same time the right to effective protection against fires needs to be guaranteed, relevant measures which can be technically and legally implemented need to be conscientiously analysed and identified. Technical progress in this field may make this task easier.
In the case of regulations, it is necessary to avoid variations between different regions. In Spain, different safety standards exist in different parts of the country. A study of legal mechanisms and processes is therefore needed to ensure that this does not happen, or that the effects are minimized.
To deal with the defective maintenance of systems and equipment, steps should be taken to ensure that the legally stipulated maintenance programmes for fire prevention systems are complied with. This requires more effective inspection programs and, where appropriate, penalties must be imposed by the responsible authorities. An in-depth analysis of the situation is needed to identify ways to improve the work of the inspection bodies.
The lowest degrees of consensus were found with regard to the influence of hotel establishment characteristics on fire safety conditions. Thus, according to the experts, priorities for actions based on hotel location, size or category could not be conclusively identified.
Nevertheless, we consider that it is necessary to go beyond mere formal compliance. Measures should be identified to help increase the awareness of all of the parties involved, and which make fire safety an integral part of the organisational structure of hotels at all levels, management, staff, suppliers, customers, etc. One such measure, which we consider essential, is to provide adequate, permanent training for staff in fire safety, emergencies and evacuation, so that their response to any such event is safe, quick and coordinated. Other measures, such as regular simulations and participation in fire safety quality certification programmes, are also effective ways to improve fire safety.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.