Transcript
WEBVTT
00:00:00.341 --> 00:00:01.947
Hello everybody, welcome to the Fire Science Show.
00:00:01.947 --> 00:00:07.192
You've most likely noticed that lately in the Fire Science Show we have a lot of wildfire content.
00:00:07.192 --> 00:00:14.833
The podcast is not changing into Wildfire Science Show, but I try to cover this for multiple reasons.
00:00:14.833 --> 00:00:54.128
I honestly believe, seeing what's happening in academia, seeing the changes in funding agencies, seeing the trends that are happening, seeing how we became connected as an evidence of the climate change, seeing the monstrous losses in wildfires, I clearly see that wildfire safety engineering will become a profession of the future and I really want to cover that well in the fire science show so you gain the best access to this knowledge that could be useful in a few years from now who knows how soon and for the younger colleagues who are just starting their career as a fire safety engineer.
00:00:54.128 --> 00:01:02.893
Perhaps you'll become a wildfire safety engineer one day and I hope that fire science show brought you a great inspiration to become one.
00:01:02.893 --> 00:01:03.704
Anyway.
00:01:03.704 --> 00:01:07.542
We've talked about what the wee problem is in general.
00:01:07.542 --> 00:01:24.027
We've talked about trigger boundaries so when does a community have to leave their houses, when they have to start to evacuate, and use of the method assessing, this time to mark a boundary around the community, helping them in their risk assessment.
00:01:24.027 --> 00:01:32.245
Now, in that episode, as you may recall, we have not touched the evacuation process itself, and this is the subject of today's show.
00:01:32.245 --> 00:01:59.733
So I've invited Enrico Ronchi, associate Professor at Lund University, and Max Kinteder, research Officer at NRC Canada, who are largely involved in studying this aspect of wildfires, that is, the evacuation layer, the evacuation processes, the traffic conditions and the interaction between the smoke driving and, in general, the wildfire and the evacuation process itself.
00:01:59.733 --> 00:02:02.301
So a very interesting episode.
00:02:02.301 --> 00:02:09.705
Again, I also believe that a lot of stuff we learn for wildfires can be translated into buildings, and this is the case in here.
00:02:09.705 --> 00:02:17.991
I also believe a lot of things that we learn about wildfire evacuation or community evacuation we can translate into the building evacuation processes.
00:02:17.991 --> 00:02:23.449
So, yeah, it's a good one, let's spin the intro and jump into the episode.
00:02:23.449 --> 00:02:31.420
Good one, let's spin the intro and jump into the episode.
00:02:31.441 --> 00:02:32.020
Welcome to the Firesize Show.
00:02:32.020 --> 00:02:33.603
My name is Wojciech Wigrzyński and I will be your host.
00:02:33.603 --> 00:02:53.097
This podcast is brought to you in collaboration with OFR Consultants.
00:02:53.097 --> 00:02:57.344
Ofr is the UK's leading fire risk consultancy.
00:02:57.344 --> 00:03:06.903
Its globally established team has developed a reputation for preeminent fire engineering expertise, with colleagues working across the world to help protect people, property and environment.
00:03:06.903 --> 00:03:13.323
Established in the UK in 2016 as a startup business of two highly experienced fire engineering consultants.
00:03:13.323 --> 00:03:22.705
The business has grown phenomenally in just seven years, with offices across the country in seven locations, from Edinburgh to Bath, and now employing more than a hundred professionals.
00:03:22.705 --> 00:03:34.367
Colleagues are on a mission to continually explore the challenges that fire creates for clients and society, applying the best research experience and diligence for effective, tailored fire safety solutions.
00:03:34.367 --> 00:03:42.131
In 2024, ofr will grow its team once more and is always keen to hear from industry professionals.
00:03:42.131 --> 00:03:45.007
Who would like to collaborate on fire safety futures.
00:03:45.007 --> 00:03:48.347
This year, get in touch at OFRConsultantscom.
00:03:49.028 --> 00:03:50.832
Hello everybody, welcome to the Fire Science Show.
00:03:50.832 --> 00:03:56.192
I am joined today by two gentlemen Enrico Ronchi, associate Professor at Lund University.
00:03:56.192 --> 00:03:59.187
Hey, enrico, welcome back to the podcast after a long time.
00:03:59.187 --> 00:03:59.908
Thanks.
00:03:59.908 --> 00:04:00.972
Thanks for the invitation.
00:04:01.120 --> 00:04:02.623
Wojciech, I'm very happy to be back.
00:04:03.245 --> 00:04:06.772
And first time in the show, dr Max Kineteder from NRC Canada.
00:04:06.772 --> 00:04:08.342
Hey Max, welcome to the podcast.
00:04:08.704 --> 00:04:09.987
Hi Wojciech, Very nice to be here.
00:04:09.987 --> 00:04:10.688
Thank you for having us.
00:04:10.849 --> 00:04:21.047
Thanks, thanks for coming and it seems I'm having a wee month in the podcast because there's so many interesting topics around the subject of wildfires and wee problem in general.
00:04:21.047 --> 00:04:25.995
Actually, we tried to define what is a wee problem a few weeks ago and that was the most interesting conversation.
00:04:25.995 --> 00:04:36.862
Also a few weeks ago I had Harry and Nick from Imperial College talking here about the trigger boundaries and they were telling me about how to measure when to evacuate a community.
00:04:36.862 --> 00:04:48.968
And I know you guys are on the other end of this question because you are studying how would we evacuate, how does the process look like and what actually happens when large communities are evacuating?
00:04:48.968 --> 00:04:57.382
And my first question actually most of the listeners of the Fire Science Show would be related to civil engineering or fire safety engineering in buildings.
00:04:57.382 --> 00:05:07.101
I wonder to what extent evacuating a community, how much is it similar to evacuating a building and how much it's different, the scale?
00:05:07.141 --> 00:05:13.141
that we talk about is completely different, but also the modes of evacuation are different.
00:05:13.141 --> 00:05:18.331
When we look into buildings, we mostly look at evacuation on food.
00:05:18.331 --> 00:05:23.509
Instead, when we look at communities, we look at many different means of evacuation.
00:05:23.509 --> 00:05:33.182
So not only evacuation on food, but also using different types of transportation like private vehicles, public vehicles and also alternative means.
00:05:33.182 --> 00:05:51.012
Sometimes we've seen very, let's say, unique types of evacuation with boats or things like this, but in any case, I would say both the mode of evacuating is different as well as the scale, because even the largest buildings, in terms of population, we talk about thousands of people.
00:05:51.012 --> 00:05:52.482
I mean very rarely.
00:05:52.482 --> 00:06:05.670
Okay, you need to have a massive high rise to have tens of thousands, but that's not super common, while instead, when we talk about community evacuation, unfortunately it's more and more common that we talk about tens of thousands of people to evacuate.
00:06:05.670 --> 00:06:09.490
So to look into that kind of scale is a problem on its own.
00:06:10.540 --> 00:06:11.526
How about the timescale?
00:06:11.526 --> 00:06:17.410
Because, like in the building, I sound an alarm and hopefully after a pre-evacuation time distribution.
00:06:17.410 --> 00:06:19.653
Let's not go too deep into arguments about this.
00:06:19.653 --> 00:06:24.588
But after a certain amount of time I guess everyone left the building or at least started evacuating.
00:06:24.588 --> 00:06:25.932
Is the timescale also a differentiating factor in WE evacuations?
00:06:25.932 --> 00:06:28.096
But after a certain amount of time I guess everyone left the building or at least started evacuating.
00:06:28.096 --> 00:06:29.800
Is the time scale also a differentiating factor in Wii evacuations?
00:06:30.779 --> 00:06:31.540
Yeah, I think so.
00:06:31.540 --> 00:06:38.653
So one key difference is and you already mentioned that is that in a building evacuation you hear the fire alarm and then it's go time right.
00:06:38.653 --> 00:06:44.291
Ideally, and unless it's an announced drill, no one expects a fire alarm to go off right.
00:06:44.291 --> 00:06:50.362
The difference for wildfires most commonly it's a seasonal phenomenon, so people are aware.
00:06:50.362 --> 00:06:54.012
Residents are commonly aware of the risks of that wildfires might occur.
00:06:54.920 --> 00:07:03.992
In North America there's something called fire weather index, so there's some public awareness that there's an increased risk of wildfires.
00:07:03.992 --> 00:07:09.452
And also you have a little bit more lead way to evacuate.
00:07:09.452 --> 00:07:18.846
So, for example, if there's a wildfire in a proximity, you maybe you don't get an immediate evacuation order, but you might get a notice that, okay, maybe you will have to evacuate soon.
00:07:18.846 --> 00:07:19.990
So there's a little bit.
00:07:19.990 --> 00:07:21.547
The timescale is a little bit different.
00:07:21.547 --> 00:07:26.165
I think what's very interesting for us as researchers is that to see.
00:07:26.165 --> 00:07:34.339
So we come from the building evacuation side and we understand pretty well how people move around during evacuations and how they make decisions in buildings.
00:07:34.339 --> 00:07:41.228
What is really interesting to find out is whether those lessons translate to the WUI community.
00:07:41.922 --> 00:07:42.846
And how about safety?
00:07:42.846 --> 00:07:51.300
If I'm evacuating a building, building I'm evacuating people to safety, which usually is outside the building or, you know, a designed area where people should gather.
00:07:51.300 --> 00:07:56.540
If I'm evacuating a hospital, I'm sometimes doing a horizontal evacuation no neighboring fire compartment.
00:07:56.540 --> 00:07:59.148
They're safe when they're, when they're in that space.
00:07:59.148 --> 00:08:01.541
Like, where do you evacuate those people in?
00:08:01.541 --> 00:08:09.872
We even how far you have to take them away to provide them safety, because, I mean, the fire is a transient phenomenon that, in a way, is chasing them right.
00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:25.673
Yeah, well, and that's the challenge right, because we have seen in the past in different events that, for instance, people were initially evacuated in an area or in a shelter and so on, and then that very area became also threatened by the wildfire.
00:08:25.673 --> 00:08:57.249
So I would say that the challenge with the scale is not only the size in terms of area and number of people involved, but it's also to define in itself what's the threatened area, because this is kind of dynamic, so it's a much more dynamic process than what we are used to in buildings, where pretty much we know what are the spatial boundaries of the scenario that we're dealing with, while instead, in a wildfire, we don't even know necessarily to begin with where, let's say, our evacuation ward finish.
00:08:57.249 --> 00:09:09.711
And this of course has implications in design policies, even for all of us that use models and so on, because it's one of those key decisions that you need to take where to evacuate people, and it's not obvious.
00:09:10.139 --> 00:09:12.908
Yeah, so the question is often like what is a place of safety right?
00:09:12.908 --> 00:09:18.169
And that's a broad idea and it can really change dynamically, as Enrico mentioned.
00:09:18.169 --> 00:09:29.191
So one big challenge in wildfires is that smoke travels really far right and that can impact, for example, the vulnerable populations differently than people who don't have certain risk factors.
00:09:29.921 --> 00:09:43.748
If we already use the example of a building pre-evacuation time distributions, how much from the human behavior we know in the building context, how much of that translates to the setting of a wildfire evacuation?
00:09:43.748 --> 00:09:46.833
Are these like completely different processes?
00:09:46.833 --> 00:09:54.139
You're studying human behavior, so I wonder how much of your expertise from tunnels, for example, enrico, how much of that translates to we?
00:09:54.922 --> 00:09:58.351
When it comes to fundamental theories on human behavior in fire.
00:09:58.351 --> 00:10:10.874
We don't have to reinvent the wheel when we move from tunnels or buildings to wildfires but, as mentioned, the fact that the temporal and the spatial scale change bring in other challenges.
00:10:10.874 --> 00:10:59.980
So, for instance, in buildings we don't have this problem of deciding the mode we evacuate with right, so it's pretty much everyone on foot and while this is another challenge which brings in many other questions regarding human behavior, because model choice is a big, let's say, topic of research on its own, when it comes to emergencies, many aspects which are very specifically linked to the larger scale and different type of scenarios that need dedicated research and in fact many of us that move from buildings to the wildfire scale, let's say, had to focus a lot on reading up also what is done in research in the transportation world and so on.
00:11:00.001 --> 00:11:01.909
Fortunately, I consider myself lucky because I come from the transport world, and so on.
00:11:01.909 --> 00:11:04.240
Fortunately, I consider myself lucky because I come from the transport world.
00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:15.091
Then I went into building and I came back into transportation, modeling and understanding all the factors linked to, let's say, people taking decision at that kind of scale.
00:11:15.113 --> 00:11:17.201
So so we develop these models.
00:11:17.201 --> 00:11:26.337
So we have researchers in the building evacuation field, have developed these models and theories to try to understand human behavior in fire and, I think, applying those.
00:11:26.337 --> 00:11:47.802
It's an open question like to what degree those models and theories are useful and representative for the wildfire context, and so one example is a common phenomenon that we observe in building evacuations is movement to the familiar right, so that we often observe that when there's a fire drill that people tend to evacuate via the routes that they know right.
00:11:47.802 --> 00:12:00.467
So often we see people just evacuating towards, not towards the nearest exit but to the main entrance of a building, and what's really interesting to see is what we don't know if that is also applicable for the Wi-Fi context.
00:12:01.215 --> 00:12:04.322
And how about challenges Like when we design buildings?
00:12:04.322 --> 00:12:06.956
There are those, let's say, group behaviors.
00:12:06.956 --> 00:12:11.096
People try to pick up their children from the kids play areas and stuff like that.
00:12:11.096 --> 00:12:16.815
I guess in the community evacuation you see the same things, but on a much greater scale.
00:12:16.815 --> 00:12:25.703
How is this social context in which people are captured by the fire, how that changes the onset of the evacuation itself?
00:12:25.703 --> 00:12:27.687
It must be much more chaotic, right.
00:12:27.995 --> 00:12:42.246
Yeah, imagine people are at work, right, and then you receive an evacuation notice and then you know, like, maybe your kids are at school, your partner is somewhere else, maybe you have relatives in town, so that changes many things right.
00:12:42.246 --> 00:12:45.684
And yeah, this is just as Enrico said before.
00:12:45.684 --> 00:12:50.486
This just increases the dynamic nature of those scenarios.
00:12:51.176 --> 00:13:16.299
And I mean and this is reflecting the way we started this because I mean there is a whole field you know, my modeling soul comes here there is a whole field of what they call activity models, activity-based models, which are not just going from point a to point b but very similar to what we have in the buildings, that we call behavioral itineraries, so like going from point a, b to b, b to c and c to d.
00:13:16.299 --> 00:13:25.623
But I mean this probably plays an even more important role when it comes to wildfire evacuation because, again, the scale is larger.
00:13:25.623 --> 00:13:33.488
This can have a larger impact on evacuation flows and so on and the whole evacuation process can be affected.
00:13:33.835 --> 00:13:34.856
Yeah, the scale is larger.
00:13:34.856 --> 00:13:38.785
The challenges I hope we highlighted the differences.
00:13:38.785 --> 00:13:53.910
I'm doing this because you know a lot of listeners in here are fire safety engineers and I am truly convinced that in a decade, two decades, a wildfire engineer will be a job that will be a well-paid job and will be in high need.
00:13:53.910 --> 00:14:07.023
So I'm trying to convince my fellow listeners that it's worthwhile your time to invest in knowledge in this area, that that's why topics like this are brought to the Fire Science Show, not just because they're very interesting.
00:14:07.023 --> 00:14:12.284
Now I'm really interested in how do we study this?
00:14:12.284 --> 00:14:15.719
There are wildfires occurring every now and then.
00:14:15.719 --> 00:14:20.184
Today in the morning there was a wildfire evacuation in the media.
00:14:20.184 --> 00:14:31.390
How are you learning or how are you gathering information to fuel your future models and future predictions and optimizations of community evacuations?
00:14:31.390 --> 00:14:33.282
How are we studying this right now?
00:14:33.855 --> 00:14:43.946
There is a wide range of methods that are used nowadays to study wildfire evacuation, and, you know, people like me and Max have been exploring some of those.
00:14:43.946 --> 00:14:52.168
There are other research that look at others, but I mean evacuation drills are done also at community scale, not just at the building scale.
00:14:52.168 --> 00:15:02.434
We can talk about, for instance, a recent experience that we had in the community of Roxborough Park in Colorado, where we had the opportunity to observe a community evacuation drill.
00:15:02.434 --> 00:15:26.005
The logistics, the work, the preparation that goes into this it's massive compared to what you have in a building, and for us, though, it's this kind of opportunities that are goldmine when it comes to data, because then we can deploy everything that we can, from drones to traffic counters, observers Even we developed an app just to track how people respond.
00:15:26.005 --> 00:15:34.341
So this is the kind of data that we are interested in to try to understand how people will react to this type of emergencies, and that's a drill scale.
00:15:34.514 --> 00:15:39.100
Another avenue is from real-world scenarios, like, for instance, when it comes to traffic.
00:15:39.100 --> 00:15:45.841
There are databases of traffic data, which include data from emergency scenarios, so we have been looking.
00:15:45.841 --> 00:15:56.340
One of my PhD students, arthur Royer, has been looking into, for instance, extracting data related to wildfire, evacuation from a traffic database, for instance in California.
00:15:56.340 --> 00:16:00.913
So in some of those very large evacuation scenarios that happen in California, so in some of those very large evacuation scenarios that happen in California.
00:16:00.913 --> 00:16:14.500
But there are many more avenues, and the one that's definitely Max can give more insights in is, for instance, vr and the use of driving simulations, because that's very powerful to collect data on human behavior when driving.
00:16:15.042 --> 00:16:15.443
Yeah, sure.
00:16:15.443 --> 00:16:28.825
So I think Enrico hit the nail on the head when he said that we use many methods and we're not doing that because we'd like to try out all different kinds of data sources, although that is fun and interesting and scientifically interesting and engaging.
00:16:28.825 --> 00:16:41.025
But the problem is that it's very hard to get reproducible, valid, reliable and generalizable data from Wi-Fi evacuations, also from building evacuations.
00:16:41.025 --> 00:16:58.760
I think the only example where we have very good data that is from the field and also experimentally valid is from tunnel evacuations, because this is the only environment where the real world is completely controllable and artificial, which is great for researchers, but it's also true for the rest.
00:16:58.760 --> 00:17:08.542
But for everything else, we always need to find this balance between what we call ecological validity and experimental control.
00:17:08.542 --> 00:17:13.499
So say, for example, we go to an observation from a past real world event this is the real thing, right?
00:17:13.499 --> 00:17:16.165
It has the highest ecological validity that you can imagine.
00:17:16.346 --> 00:17:29.528
However, it's very hard to first of all understand whether or not these findings from this one specific event can be generalized to other types of view, and what are those factors that make it not translatable or translatable.
00:17:29.528 --> 00:17:35.375
The other thing that's very hard to do is to identify cause and effect right, because we don't have controlled conditions.
00:17:35.375 --> 00:17:37.098
So what we then do?
00:17:37.098 --> 00:17:38.742
We move into the laboratory.
00:17:38.742 --> 00:17:41.127
In the laboratory, everything is very controlled.
00:17:41.454 --> 00:17:48.275
A very extreme case of that is virtual reality, where everything that the participant sees is defined and controlled by the experimenter.
00:17:48.275 --> 00:18:00.565
So this is very useful because we can record very detailed data and also do very precise experimental controls, which means we can really tease apart why people behave in a certain way.
00:18:00.565 --> 00:18:06.980
However, all of our participants are completely aware that they're participating in an experiment or that they are in a laboratory.
00:18:06.980 --> 00:18:27.403
So that reduces the ecological validity right and all the data sources that we're using, like VR lab experiments, surveys, gps data, traffic data from databases, social media data they all have to have this trade-off right that we need to find the balance between ecological validity and experimental control.
00:18:28.095 --> 00:18:29.079
You said social media.
00:18:29.079 --> 00:18:31.723
How do you utilize social media in this context?
00:18:32.055 --> 00:18:41.084
So some really interesting work that I think initiated out of hurricane evacuation, I think somewhere out of the University of Florida I'm not 100% sure about that when they look, for example.
00:18:41.084 --> 00:18:46.644
So people post things on social media right, and these things often leave traces in the public domain.
00:18:46.644 --> 00:18:58.757
So, for example, you can look into, say, in a specific you can either look into the location of a specific user so that you can tell there's something about movement patterns, or you can also look into the content that is being posted right.
00:18:58.757 --> 00:19:03.201
So or you can also look into the content that is being posted right, so that can tell you something about how, for example, information travels during a disaster.
00:19:03.941 --> 00:19:24.598
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think milestones in evacuation, in understanding human behavior in evacuation, were stuff like MGM Grant World Trade Center, when a significant service was carried out with the survivors of those fires and a lot of knowledge was gathered after the fire by talking to people.
00:19:24.598 --> 00:19:28.367
Is this also your use in this context or here the scale is again too big for that.
00:19:28.815 --> 00:19:32.726
No, no, definitely we can use also so-called qualitative data.
00:19:32.726 --> 00:19:35.964
So, interviewing people, this is something that we do routinely.
00:19:35.964 --> 00:19:53.957
Just to give an example, recently I've been involved in a project funded by the eu civil protection which was looking at tourist behavior in wildfires because, you know, they are particularly vulnerable groups because maybe they don't speak the language, maybe they're not fully familiar with the environment.
00:19:53.957 --> 00:20:22.815
So this was a project together with the upc, el Elsa Pastor in Barcelona, and basically we went on site in areas where they had wildfires in the border between France and Spain, so in Catalonia, and there we had the chance to interview people, both managers of facilities that were evacuated and people that experienced evacuation, to ask about their actions, how they behave during the event.
00:20:22.815 --> 00:20:28.567
And you know, the goal is to unpack, for instance, specific behavior of particular groups.
00:20:29.134 --> 00:21:00.230
I have a very interesting slash, sad episode on one of these interviews, when I had one of the managers of a tourist facility that told me you know, some of the tourists, while we were fighting the fire that was really at the border of our property, were more worried about having breakfast, because sometimes the risk perception is very different when it comes to people that are familiar with the environment and people that are completely unfamiliar with the risk and with the situation.
00:21:00.230 --> 00:21:04.846
So it is definitely important to bring in also qualitative data to the picture.
00:21:04.846 --> 00:21:07.763
So this is definitely something that researchers like me.
00:21:07.763 --> 00:21:15.241
I know Erika Kuligoski nowadays these days she's doing a very large data collection in Australia regarding wildfire evacuation.
00:21:15.555 --> 00:21:17.000
So qualitative.
00:21:17.180 --> 00:21:25.411
In general, they often get a bad rap because everyone is aware of the biases that are in these data, but they're extremely useful for a number of things.
00:21:25.431 --> 00:21:35.426
So they, for example, if you talk to stakeholders, you can ask the question, so you can ask people who are very familiar with the local context, just, for example, as the tourist manager that Enrico just managed.
00:21:35.426 --> 00:21:44.583
This is information that you otherwise wouldn't be able to get right, and you can ask people why they did certain things right, and then you know that there might be bias in there.
00:21:44.583 --> 00:21:55.134
But if you have sufficient amounts of data, it can give you an idea about certain patterns, right, and this is very useful to generate, then hypotheses that you can then test with objective data.
00:21:55.134 --> 00:21:56.862
So it's extremely useful.
00:21:56.862 --> 00:22:00.244
And it's also not trivial, right, so you have to be able to.
00:22:00.244 --> 00:22:07.201
So there's extremely useful and it's also not trivial, right, so you have to be able to.
00:22:07.201 --> 00:22:12.340
So there's a lot of work that goes into developing a good survey, a good interview, so that you are able to extract the information that you need with the precision and objectivity that is necessary.
00:22:13.134 --> 00:22:20.845
You got my interest very high with that drill, Enrico, and we will go there, but I still need to clear one more thing about data collections.
00:22:20.845 --> 00:22:28.218
What kind of data are you trying to distill from that, the decision-making process?
00:22:28.218 --> 00:22:33.088
You mentioned multiple times the modes of transfer, so I guess that's in your interest.
00:22:33.088 --> 00:22:36.965
Are you also creating some stuff like fundamental diagrams that we would have?
00:22:39.480 --> 00:22:47.987
Actually, all that we know about pedestrian dynamics and pedestrian evacuation fundamental diagrams arrived much before in the world of transport.
00:22:47.987 --> 00:23:14.515
The element that is completely missing and that is where we really started doing research a couple of years ago is to how can we create a fundamental diagram, so a relationship between speed and vehicle speed and traffic density when we have smoke, because the way people drive in low visibility is possibly very different than when the visibility is perfect, especially when you have an emergency.
00:23:15.798 --> 00:23:27.464
So the me and max have been putting together were exactly on using driving simulators to try to understand how people drive when they are in this kind of low visibility scenarios.
00:23:27.464 --> 00:23:30.345
And you know it's not a yes, no problem, no.
00:23:30.345 --> 00:23:37.604
So you need to vary the visibility, vary the boundary conditions of the scenarios and see how the behavior change.
00:23:37.604 --> 00:23:52.724
So one of the goals of what we are doing now in the most recent data collection that we did both in Canada and NRC at Lund here in Sweden, is to develop a new fundamental diagram which includes visibility.
00:23:52.724 --> 00:24:08.269
So reduce visibility due to wildfire smoke A bit like it exists for pedestrian evacuation in buildings, where we know that you know from the historical gene data to many of the following experiments that have been done to understand how people walk in smoke.
00:24:08.269 --> 00:24:11.224
So this is where we are and this is where we know we have a gap.
00:24:11.224 --> 00:24:24.515
So it's a couple of years that we looked into this, but now, as I said, we're very close to produce a first fundamental diagram which can consider the impact of wildfire smoke on Brian.
00:24:24.855 --> 00:24:27.494
And it's quite interesting just for a little bit of context.
00:24:27.674 --> 00:24:34.183
So obviously there's research on driving behaviors, for example through fog, but fog scatters light differently than smoke does.
00:24:34.375 --> 00:24:40.528
So there are the perceptual properties of driving through smoke are different than through fog.
00:24:40.674 --> 00:24:42.923
And the other thing is that we know from basic research on.
00:24:43.796 --> 00:24:48.567
So what smoke does is that it's essentially what you see a little bit blurry, right.
00:24:48.567 --> 00:25:11.385
But basic research that in effect is that perceived speed of motion, so things passing by you, can be reduced if things get a little bit blurry, so that if they translate that into driving, that means if visibility is just a little bit reduced, maybe people will be driving actually fast because they think or they perceive themselves to be driving a little bit slower than they actually are.
00:25:11.385 --> 00:25:20.247
So we don't know the answer to that yet, but it's not immediately straightforward that, like as that, you know, like reduced visibility has to mean that people will immediately drive slower.
00:25:20.247 --> 00:25:28.666
Another really interesting I think that and that contributes to that fundamental diagram, is that we are really interested in how much space do people leave to the car driving in front of them.
00:25:28.666 --> 00:25:41.048
One of the key questions for the study that we conducted both at NRC and at Lund University is the headway that people leave to the car driving in front of them as a function of visibility.
00:25:41.694 --> 00:26:11.875
It's not trivial because we know, for instance, when we look at real-world data, it was at the beginning a bit counterintuitive, but we saw, for instance, that even with good visibility conditions during a vacation, some, overall the cars tend to slow down because we argue that maybe they're afraid to go into an accident, and the consequences of going into an accident during a wildfire are much higher than what you will have in a normal situation.
00:26:11.875 --> 00:26:30.585
So we need to unpack and understand how those variables have an influence against each other, because you know, on one hand you have maybe the urgency of the evacuation scenario, on the other hand, you have the visibility, which is reduced, and you have all this change in perception on while you drive.
00:26:30.585 --> 00:26:32.147
So it's tricky.
00:26:32.147 --> 00:26:35.398
It's not a simple question that we want to answer.
00:26:35.779 --> 00:26:36.642
Is this a bottleneck?
00:26:36.642 --> 00:26:40.568
Are roads having not enough capacity to support massive evacuations?
00:26:41.015 --> 00:27:05.701
Unfortunately, we see too often that sometimes it takes too long to evacuate communities, and I mean there is also the fact that sometimes parts of the road network become unavailable because of the risk linked to the presence of the wildfire, which means that maybe an already reduced capacity becomes even smaller, and then you have queuing.
00:27:05.701 --> 00:27:13.463
And we know that very often the worst consequences of wildfires are linked to delayed evacuations.
00:27:13.463 --> 00:27:14.948
That can occur in this scenario.
00:27:15.776 --> 00:27:24.670
So this is where drills come back in and, for example, some communities have dedicated evacuation routes that are only available when there's an evacuation.
00:27:24.670 --> 00:27:29.446
So those communities exist and, in theory, take pressure off the road network.
00:27:29.446 --> 00:27:33.375
However, that only works if people are actually using them right.
00:27:33.375 --> 00:27:46.247
And this goes back to this movement to the familiar that I mentioned earlier is that we need to understand how willing and likely people are to use familiar that I mentioned earlier is that we need to understand how willing and likely people are to use roads that they are not familiar with, for example.
00:27:46.674 --> 00:27:50.202
Another strategy which is adopted sometimes is lane reversal.
00:27:50.202 --> 00:27:58.178
So since everyone has to get out, even if you have two-way roads, you basically flip one of the two lanes so that you increase the capacity.
00:27:58.178 --> 00:28:04.762
But again, this involves a few traffic management issues that have to be planned and solved beforehand.
00:28:04.762 --> 00:28:09.846
It's not straightforward to change the direction of a lane in traffic.
00:28:10.295 --> 00:28:23.028
Yeah, and I can imagine you may have rescue services trying to use the opposite way, going into the fire, but in the same way as you would have firefighters climbing up the staircase when you evacuate, which is a similar problem.
00:28:23.028 --> 00:28:28.647
What, max, you've said about the familiarity, and I was thinking in my head about a scenario of evacuating myself.
00:28:28.647 --> 00:28:38.962
I'm driving through unfamiliar roads all the time because Google Maps is pointing me to ridiculous detours when I'm trying to reach my parents in the mountains, and every single time it's a different road.
00:28:38.962 --> 00:28:45.226
But I have a high trust in the capability of Google Maps not killing me, which perhaps is a bit too naive.
00:28:45.226 --> 00:28:48.942
But I wonder, in a mass evacuation you probably can also lose those services.
00:28:48.942 --> 00:28:54.365
So people are pretty much technologically blind as well, may not have access to those technologies.
00:28:54.365 --> 00:29:00.948
In that case, they can only follow the guidance from the rescue services and then perhaps the other ones around them.
00:29:00.948 --> 00:29:04.244
So that must be also a stressful factor in this process.
00:29:04.734 --> 00:29:07.275
I think it's important for planning ahead, right.
00:29:07.275 --> 00:29:09.423
So this is something I came up with.
00:29:09.423 --> 00:29:17.284
I can't remember who said it, but the cost of automation is the loss of skill, right, and this applies exactly to what you just described.
00:29:17.284 --> 00:29:22.567
We rely so much on these navigation-assisted devices because they're amazing, right, so they're so good.
00:29:22.567 --> 00:29:30.240
Like, if I drive from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island, where my in-laws live it's a 14-hour drive, I don't even have to think about it.
00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:42.949
So when you use that, all of a sudden there's this vacuum that emerges for both the end user, but also, maybe, for the people who need it, for the emergency response teams who need to know where people are, where people are driving.
00:29:43.295 --> 00:29:51.327
Especially in remote locations or, even worse, as I mentioned before, in locations where people are not familiar at all with the environment.
00:29:51.327 --> 00:30:03.469
I mean, if you think about Europe, you know Southern Europe is filled up with tourists in the summer and the areas where wildfires are often overlap with this, and you know many.
00:30:03.469 --> 00:30:11.595
Often nowadays people don't need to plan all the details of the routes beforehand because they over-rely on technology.
00:30:11.595 --> 00:30:21.432
So I think this is definitely something to consider and that's why, in general, the planning of evacuation has to take this into account.
00:30:21.432 --> 00:30:30.078
So we need to have contingency plans so that, if the technology fails, we have mechanisms to support those that need to evacuate.
00:30:30.605 --> 00:30:31.547
I like this direction.
00:30:31.547 --> 00:30:34.770
I mean, I like to distill the practical takeaways.
00:30:34.770 --> 00:30:59.372
Of course, simply studying the human evacuation at large is fascinating, but here you're distilling very important bits of knowledge the preparedness, contingency plans, different strategies, the things that may actually make the situation worse, like the loss of visibility that if it takes you six hours to evacuate a community at perfect visibility, it might take you 12 because people start driving slower right.
00:30:59.372 --> 00:31:06.454
So it's critical to have this knowledge beforehand so we can actually react to those tragic situations.
00:31:06.454 --> 00:31:12.107
And unfortunately we have cases in which hundreds of people die or dozens of people die in a single WE event.
00:31:12.107 --> 00:31:15.270
Hundreds of people die or dozens of people die in a single wee event.
00:31:15.270 --> 00:31:19.075
You've mentioned drills, so give me the juicy details.
00:31:19.075 --> 00:31:22.719
Tell me, how does one prepare for a community evacuation drill?
00:31:22.719 --> 00:31:25.842
What do you look for and how did it go?
00:31:25.842 --> 00:31:28.307
Perhaps let's start with the planning.
00:31:28.307 --> 00:31:30.814
How far ahead actually do you have to plan such a massive event?
00:31:30.814 --> 00:31:32.057
How many people are needed?
00:31:32.484 --> 00:31:33.529
So it takes a lot of time.