Fire safety knowledge gaps persist in Chinese high-rise residential buildings, study finds

Fire safety knowledge gaps in high-rise residential China

Dianchi College researchers have reported that around half of residents in Chinese high-rise homes lack adequate fire safety knowledge and preparedness, based on a nationwide survey of 606 people living in multi-storey residential buildings.

The study, published in Scientific Reports, sets these findings against rising high-rise fire incidents reported by the National Fire and Rescue Administration, with 17,000 high-rise fires recorded in 2022 compared with 8,348 in 2020 and over 80% of cases occurring in residential buildings.

The authors note that high-rise fires account for only a small share of overall incidents but have caused more than 2 billion RMB in direct economic losses between 2008 and 2023.

They argue that resident behaviour, awareness and evacuation decisions are central to managing these risks alongside structural and systems-based fire protection.

The research focuses on high-rise homes, which the study describes as presenting more obstacles to timely evacuation than offices, hotels or other tall building uses.

Survey of fire safety knowledge across 606 residents

According to the paper, the research team used a structured online questionnaire in February 2025 targeting adults living in high-rise residential buildings across multiple Chinese provinces.

The instrument covered four areas, namely demographic information, residents’ awareness and preparedness, knowledge of building fire safety features and the status of building fire safety management.

All 606 responses were judged valid and included in the analysis after checks for completeness.

Women made up 66.34% of respondents, and 65.35% were aged between 30 and 39 years.

Most participants were highly educated, with 65.35% reporting a bachelor’s degree, 18.81% a master’s degree and 5.94% a doctorate, while 9.9% had completed high school.

Residents were spread across height bands, with 35.65% living on floors one to six, 25.74% on floors ten to seventeen, 18.81% on floors eighteen to twenty nine and 12.87% on floor thirty or above.

The study reports that 69.3% had lived in high-rise buildings for five years or longer, and 40.6% for between nine and fifteen years.

Ethical approval was granted by the SEGi Research Ethics Committee, and participation was anonymous with informed consent recorded for all respondents.

Awareness, behaviour and building safety features

The questionnaire results show that 29.70% of residents believed their building definitely faced fire risk, 48.51% saw possible risk and 21.78% did not perceive any risk.

Only 5.94% reported a past fire incident in their own building, although 23.76% said there had been fires elsewhere in their residential complex and 33.66% had indirect exposure through neighbouring fires or reports from contacts.

On everyday behaviour, 69.31% said they routinely switched off unused electrical appliances before leaving home, and 93.07% reported that fire extinguishers were available in their building.

Despite this, just 47.52% had an evacuation plan for themselves and their families in case of a building fire, leaving 52.48% without a pre-arranged plan.

Attendance at drills was low, with only 10.89% having taken part in a fire drill in their own building and 32.67% having done so in other buildings.

Figures in the paper show that residents aged 30 to 39 accounted for more than four fifths of participants in drills held in their own buildings, while younger adults and older groups had much lower participation.

Drill participation in other buildings was also higher among those on lower and mid floors than among residents on the highest floors.

Regarding fire safety features, 95.05% of respondents knew the location of escape stairs and 82.18% knew where those stairs led, but 64.36% said the doors to emergency staircases were usually left open.

Just 55.45% believed that corridors were wide enough for all occupants on a floor to evacuate during a fire, 20.79% thought they were not, and 23.76% were unsure.

Analysis by floor height indicated that awareness of stair locations and exits was slightly lower among residents on higher floors, which the authors relate to heavier reliance on lifts and less routine use of stairs.

Fire safety management and regression findings

For building fire safety management, 46.53% of residents said their building underwent regular fire safety inspections, 18.81% said inspections did not happen and 34.65% did not know.

Only 9.9% reported regular fire drills in their own building, and 25.74% said their wider community conducted drills, while 63.37% and 45.54% respectively said these activities did not take place.

Fire safety appeared in the agenda of residents’ meetings for 30.69% of respondents, whereas 27.72% said such issues were not raised and 41.58% were unsure, but 62.38% recalled receiving fire safety notices or leaflets from building management.

To examine influences on knowledge and awareness, the researchers constructed an index from selected questions and applied hierarchical multiple regression with gender and years of high-rise living as control variables.

The full model, which also included age group, education level, floor band, direct fire incident experience, indirect fire exposure and participation in drills, explained 19.4% of the variance in knowledge and awareness scores, with a Durbin–Watson value of 1.990 reported.

Gender, age, education level and fire drill participation showed clear positive associations with higher knowledge and awareness scores after controlling for other variables, while residential floor, previous fire incidents, indirect exposure and years of residence did not.

Further analysis by gender suggested that for women, age and education were the strongest predictors of higher scores, whereas for men, drill participation had the largest effect.

When residents were grouped by years of living in high-rise buildings, newer occupants with one to four years of experience appeared to benefit from both higher education and participation in drills, while those with five to eight years of experience mainly gained from drills alone.

For residents with more than eight years in high-rise housing, neither education nor drills showed a clear additional effect on knowledge scores within the model.

Recommendations and study limitations

In their discussion, the authors state that low levels of evacuation planning, limited participation in fire drills and inconsistent building inspections point to ongoing weaknesses in the way high-rise fire safety is managed in Chinese residential settings.

They argue that building management committees should organise regular drills, keep escape route doors closed, improve communication of fire safety information and ensure that inspections and maintenance are carried out in line with national codes.

The study highlights younger women and residents with lower educational attainment as groups with relatively low awareness, and proposes stratified education programmes that target these demographics directly.

At the same time, the consistent association between drill participation and higher knowledge scores leads the authors to recommend structured drill programmes for new and mid-term residents, with refresher activities for longer-term occupants.

The authors acknowledge that the sample of 606 respondents, although spread across several provinces, may not fully represent residents in less developed cities or smaller towns where high-rise construction is still emerging.

They suggest that future work should enlarge the sample, include socio-economic indicators such as income and occupation, and capture views from designers, regulators and other stakeholders to deepen understanding of human factors in high-rise fire safety.

Fire safety knowledge research and practice for high-rise housing

The findings provide data that fire and rescue chiefs can use when planning high-rise risk reduction strategies, particularly around public education, drill design and liaison with building management committees in dense urban areas.

For building services engineers, architects and fire engineering consultants, the reported gaps between code requirements for protected staircases, corridor widths and door closure and the conditions perceived by residents highlight areas where design, specification and supervision may need closer attention in Chinese projects.

Facility managers and property management companies can compare their own drill schedules, inspection routines and communication practices with the patterns described in the study, using the results to justify investment in more regular training and clearer resident information.

Training officers and instructors involved in community fire safety programmes may also draw on the regression analysis when tailoring materials, for example placing extra emphasis on drill-based learning for male residents and combining drills with more formal instruction for new residents with shorter tenures in high-rise housing.