Content uploaded by M.Z. Naser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M.Z. Naser on Jun 25, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The role of large language models (AI chatbots) in fire engineering: An
examination of technical questions against domain knowledge
Haley Hostetter
a
, M.Z. Naser
a
,
b
,
*
, Xinyan Huang
c
, John Gales
d
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, USA
b
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute for Science and Engineering (AIRISE), Clemson University, USA
c
Department of Building Environment and Energy Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
d
Department of Civil Engineering, York University, Toronto, Canada
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Chatbots
Artificial intelligence (AI)
Fire engineering
Large language models (LLMs)
ABSTRACT
This communication presents a short review of chatbot technology and preliminary findings from comparing two
recent chatbots, OpenAI’sChatGPT and Google’sBard, in the context of fire engineering by evaluating their re-
sponses in handling fire safety-related queries. A diverse range of fire engineering questions and scenarios were
created and examined, including structural fire design, fire prevention strategies, evacuation, building code
compliance, and fire suppression systems. The results reveal some key differences in the performance of the
chatbots, with ChatGPT demonstrating a relatively superior performance of 88% (vs. 80% for Bard). Then, this
communication highlights the potential for chatbot technology to revolutionize fire engineering practices by
providing instant access to critical information while outlining areas for further improvement and research.
Evidently, and when it matures, this technology will likely be elemental to our engineers’practice and education.
1. An introduction to chatbots
A chatbot is a computer program capable of simulating conversation
with humans (Adamopoulou and Moussiades, 2020a). Such a program
(or platform) is often built via artificial intelligence (AI) and natural
language processing (NLP) with the goal of understanding human ques-
tions and automating customized responses. More specifically, a chatbot
is made from large language models (LLMs), a subset of AI trained via
machine learning to learn the patterns and connections between words
and phrases. This refers to the ability of the chatbot to uniquely respond
to human-posed questions almost instantaneously, thereby simulating
human conversation.
Perhaps the first idea for computer-based chatbots arose from the
question, “can a computer communicate in a way indistinguishable from
human?”posed by one of the computer science pioneers, Alan Turing, in
1950 (Zemcik, 2019). In the decades following, several chatbots were
developed, including Eliza (1964-6), PARRY (1972), Racter (1983), and
Dr. Sabaitso (1991) (Zemcik, 2019). Eliza, one of the oldest chatbots, was
created by the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT and programmed
to behave like a doctor—simulating the role of a psychotherapist who
asks and responds to questions to divert attention back to the user
(Natale, 2019). Eliza quickly garnered the attention of users (who began
to provide their personal stories, secrets, and sensitive information) and
developers (who used Eliza as inspiration for later AI-powered chatbots).
PARRY, on the other hand, was programmed to behave as a “paranoid
schizophrenic patient”(McNeal and Newyear, 2013). It attempted to
provoke a user with questions that required more elaborate responses,
thereby providing learning psychiatrists with a tool to help them
communicate with schizophrenic patients. Later, Racter and Dr. Sabaitso
increased the realism of chatbot technology. According to developer
William Chamberlain, Racter’s ability to direct a computer to maintain
certain randomly chosen variables, such as words and phrases, helps the
program’s answers pass for coherent thinking similar to humans (Zemcik,
2019). Then, the chatbot Dr. Sabaitso (an acronym for “Sound Blaster
Artificial Intelligent Text to Speech Operator”) revolutionized the field as
the first chatbot able to synthesize speech similar to a psychologist
(Adamopoulou and Moussiades, 2020b). Although it could not commu-
nicate in a sufficiently complex way, verbal communication increased the
humanity of the chatbot.
Apart from the aforementioned chatbots, the development and use of
new AI chatbots increased in popularity with the expansion of the
Internet and social media platforms in the 1990s. For example, ALICE,
one of the first chatbots to go online, was introduced in 1995 (Zemcik,
2019). An acronym meaning “Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer
* Corresponding author. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, USA.
E-mail addresses: hhostet@g.clemson.edu (H. Hostetter), mznaser@clemson.edu (M.Z. Naser), xy.huang@polyu.edu.hk (X. Huang), jgales@yorku.ca (J. Gales).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Natural Hazards Research
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/natural-hazards-research
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2024.06.003
Received 3 March 2024; Received in revised form 20 May 2024; Accepted 10 June 2024
2666-5921/©2024 National Institute of Natural Hazards, Ministry of Emergency Management of China. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of
KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Please cite this article as: Hostetter, H. et al., The role of large language models (AI chatbots) in fire engineering: An examination of technical
questions against domain knowledge, Natural Hazards Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2024.06.003
Entity,”ALICE, though over twenty years old, remains useable today and
is often credited as paving the way for newer chatbots (McNeal and
Newyear, 2013).
More recently, chatbots have once again captured the interest of the
general public and industries alike. This is primarily due to chatbots’
ability to integrate into businesses, thus saving companies time and re-
sources. Current chatbots, however, can have a variety of purposes and
applications. For example, like the first chatbots, recent chatbots by
Disney and Marvel are meant for entertainment purposes, allowing users
to converse with their favorite movie characters (Loleng;Marvel). Still
others attempt to solve real-world problems or assist in the healthcare
field (see the chatbot developed by the company Endurance, a companion
for dementia and Alzheimer’s patients (Fomitchev, 2017) or the chatbot
developed by the company Casper, a conversational chatbot for people
with insomnia (Insomnobot-3000)).
With the broadening range of chatbot abilities and uses, many have
questioned the possibility of using such AI for more scientific or practical
applications or research. However, few papers have yet to address this,
and available literature seems to focus on the education front. For
example, Perez et al. (Fryer et al., 2017)find using chatbots for education
helpful—particularly for students with disabilities. They also note the
possibility of bridging the educational “gap”between marginalized and
mainstream groups. Similarly, Fryer et al. (2017) designed an experiment
to monitor students' learning behavior when their education was sup-
plemented with a chatbot. Results found that chatbots can have a positive
influence on student performance.
In more technical fields, such as medicine and engineering, extensive
research on the applicability of chatbots is limited. For medicine, current
research suggests promise for the application of chatbots, especially for
automated and repetitive tasks (Wilson and Marasoiu, 2022). Addition-
ally, concerns about the legal and clinical aspects of using chatbots are
common. In engineering, a 2022 study attempted to explore the imple-
mentation of chatbots into engineering education. Results show the
possibility of using chatbot technology to assist in cooperation between
students as well as the potential for their use as tools to support engi-
neering design practice (Chien and Yao, 2022). Prior to 2020, another
study aimed to develop a chatbot capable of participating in the early
stages of the engineering design process. Following interaction with
several college students, the AI chatbot proved effective (Chien and Yao,
2020).
In the more niche field of fire engineering, experts seem to disagree
with the aforementioned belief that chatbots are appropriate tools for
education and design. One of the few available publications states their
applicability in summarizing concepts and documents for non-experts,
but that they cannot be used to replace or replicate fire engineers since
such experts must ensure the safety of structures as well as conduct fire
safety assessments, recommend design changes, and select fire protection
systems (Spearpoint et al., 2023).
With the present divided opinions on the practical use of chatbots and
their limited applicable literature in the engineering field, the authors are
motivated to address chatbot responses and the possibility of their
implementation into fire engineering and evacuation (including design
and research). This is completed using the Ask Me Anything approach for
two of the leading publicly available chatbots: OpenAI’s ChatGPT,
1
,
2
and
Google’s Bard. These two chatbots were released in November 2022 and
February 2023 respectively, and our analysis examines the early release
versions of these chatbots. This paper aims to explore the current capa-
bilities of leading chatbots in a technical field and build upon the limited
available research. With the fast-evolving fields of AI and machine
learning, the authors comment on the current abilities of chatbots in
comparison to expert knowledge.
2. Methodology
This communication presents a comparison of two of the premier LLM
chatbots (OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard) in the context of fire
engineering by explicitly evaluating their accuracy in handling fire
safety-related queries when displayed in the form of Ask Me Anything
(AMA). A diverse range of fire engineering questions and scenarios were
created, including structural fire design, fire prevention strategies,
evacuation, building code compliance, and fire suppression systems
(some of which resemble those commonly present in the Fire Protection
exam (FPE)).
3
The authors choose to qualitatively evaluate chatbot re-
sponses based on domain knowledge, published literature, and accept-
able answers to possible questions that may resemble the FPE exam.
2.1. Chatbot selection and definitions
In late 2022, OpenAI released an early version of ChatGPT, a natural
language processing tool driven by AI technology. By January 2023,
ChatGPT had become the fastest-growing consumer software application
in history, gaining over 100 million users in just two months (Hu, 2023).
To compete with ChatGPT, Google released its own chatbot, Bard, in
March 2023. Both chatbots are generative AI platforms.
When these two chatbots were asked to define what a chatbot is by
these authors, they returned the following definitions:
According to ChatGPT,
A chatbot is an artificial intelligence (AI) software program designed
to simulate human-like conversations with users, usually through text
or voice interactions. Chatbots can understand and process natural
language inputs, such as text messages or spoken words, and generate
appropriate responses based on their underlying algorithms and
knowledge base. They are typically used to provide customer support,
answer frequently asked questions, assist with various tasks, or offer
personalized recommendations.
And according to Bard,
A chatbot is a computer program that simulates human conversation.
It can be used to answer questions, provide information, or perform
tasks. Chatbots are often used in customer service applications, but
they can also be used for a variety of other purposes.
In early 2023, ChatGPT and Bard were some of the only publicly
available LLMs. With their rise in popularity worldwide, it is of interest to
understand their capabilities and limitations in a more technical setting.
Thus, we have selected both LLMs to evaluate their understanding of fire
engineering.
2.2. Question selection and answer evaluation
Chatbots such as Bard and ChatGPT are intended to be open-ended
devices that users can access to ask any general or more detailed
1
In this paper, ChatGPT refers to ChatGPT-4, released in March 2023. For
transparency, some of the answers might look different by the time this publi-
cation is released. This is due to the dynamic nature of these chatbots, as well as
continued learning.
2
One should note that, at the time of this paper’s submission, ChatGPT did
not have access to real-time online data (i.e., had a cutoff date to September
2021), unlike Bard. Microsoft Corporation launched an experimental model in
March 2023 that used the Bing search engine to browse the Internet for more
accurate data. This model was available only to paid subscribers of ChatGPT
Plus (ChatGPT Will Now Have Access).
3
Recently, chatbots have been evaluated for domain-specific knowledge by
comparing their answers to acceptable responses on standardized and profes-
sional licensing exams. Examples include [(Huang et al., 2023), (Passby et al.,
2023)]. Thus, we apply this concept to the fields of fire safety and fire protection
engineering by evaluating ChatGPT and Bard’s performances’when asked
questions from the FPE exam.
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
question they wish. As such, the platforms lack a “standard”way in which
to ask questions, formulate the structure of such questions, or determine
the words to use in the queries. Thus, the questions posed to each chatbot
in this communication were intended to mimic/replicate the questions a
non-expert or student may ask about fire engineering or evacuation. We
additionally ask questions that may arise in the Fire Protection exam for
fire engineers and professionals. Thus, answers are evaluated based on
domain knowledge, acceptable responses during the Fire Protection
exam, and definitions and understanding provided in the open literature.
Additionally, we aim to understand the present knowledge of such
chatbots by posing general questions. We then evaluate the chatbots' re-
sponses in terms of their understanding of minute differences that have
been adopted in the practicing engineering field and academia.
2.3. General chatbot architecture
The architecture of a chatbot includes its underlying structure and
design. It defines how a chatbot processes text and depends on various
factors such as domain, use-case, chatbot type, and many more. Thus, the
key components of the chatbot architecture can be different for different
bots. Currently, the most common types include ruled-based, retrieval-
based, generative, and hybrid (Naser, 2023).
Rule-based,orscripted, chatbots are the earliest form of chatbots and
are developed based on predefined rules. They follow such rules to
generate responses using a series of conditional statements that check for
keywords or phrases in a user’s input. At the basic level, rule-based ar-
chitecture includes three parts: a user interface (UI), Natural Language
Processing (NLP) engine, and the rule engine (Hore, 2023). The UI is the
platform through which the user asks questions and views chatbot re-
sponses. The NLP engine works behind the UI to process the user’s input
and convert it to a readable format for the machine. Finally, the rule
engine is responsible for interpreting the user’s input, processing the
input through the conditional rules of the chatbot, and returning the
answer. Rule-based chatbots can be useful in certain scenarios but suffer
from several limitations. These include a limited ability to understand
natural language, a lack of contextual understanding, difficulty handling
ambiguity and subtle nuances, and an inability to learn and adapt over
time (Hore, 2023). Additionally, rule-based chatbots are difficult to scale
up and improve since new programming is required to update rules and
patterns within the architecture.
Next, retrieval-based chatbots work by pulling chatbot responses from
an established corpus of dialogs (What are Chatbots, 2023). Such chat-
bots use machine learning models like supervised neural networks to
interpret user inputs and determine fitting answers (What are Chatbots,
2023). They rely on predefined responses (like rule-based chatbots) but
can self-learn and improve their responses over time. Thus, these chat-
bots benefit from a greater ability to scale, adapt to changing user inputs
and interactions, and require less maintenance throughout their lifetime.
Additionally, given their predefined rules and responses, retrieval-based
chatbots guarantee quality answers without grammatical errors. How-
ever, they suffer from many of the other limitations of rule-based chat-
bots. They lack contextual and natural language understanding and have
difficulty understanding nuanced inputs.
Third, generative chatbots can formulate their own responses based on
user input rather than relying on predefined rules or existing responses
(What are Chatbots, 2023). This requires using machine learning models
like neural networks and large datasets to train the chatbots to make
decisions about appropriate responses (Bragg, 2023). Generative models
are powerful and flexible tools that benefit from an unconfined set of
responses. However, their requirement for machine learning and large
datasets make them challenging to implement. Additionally, how they
make decisions and determine an appropriate answer for user input can
be unclear. This makes them more prone to grammatical errors and
incorrect replies.
Finally, hybrid chatbots work by combining aspects of rule-based,
retrieval-based, and generative chatbots (Bragg, 2023). They use a
combination of pre-defined rules, pre-defined responses, and machine
learning (neural networks) to deliver the best responses to user inputs. As
a hybrid, they benefit from the same advantages of each of their com-
ponents. They are scalable and have improved the quality of answers
over generative models. However, they suffer from a limited ability to
understand natural language and rely heavily on accurate data in their
training sets (Bragg, 2023).
Rule-based, retrieval-based, generative, and hybrid models each use NLP
engines to process user input and convert it to machine-readable forms.
However, as mentioned in the limitations of such models, NLP engines
commonly lack the ability to understand natural human language. As a
result, LLMs were developed with the intent to improve AI understanding
of natural language and generate believable human text (Hitter, 2023).
LLMs are a specific application of NLP and are created through a trans-
former model—a type of neural network (deep learning) architecture and
form of generative AI. They work primarily through their transformer
architecture and large training datasets and have been previously limited
to use by large technology companies, who use them internally or on a
limited basis (Hitter, 2023). However, LLMs are becoming increasingly
available to the public and include models such as GPT created by
OpenAI and BERT, LaMDA, and PaLM created by Google (Hitter, 2023).
ChatGPT works under the GPT, or Generative Pre-trained Trans-
former, language model, while Bard works under the BERT, or Bidirec-
tional Encoder Representations from Transformers, language model
(Hitter, 2023). As their names imply, both GPT and BERT are
transformer-based LLMs but work in different ways. GPT is an autore-
gressive LLM, meaning it uses past textual data and previous text inputs
to determine the most appropriate next word or phrase to add to a
sequence. GPT is built on a transformer decoder that allows individual
outputs to be shared based on previously decoded outputs (Hitter, 2023).
On the other hand, BERT is a collection of bidirectional language models
from Google that have high levels of natural language and contextual
understanding. It is built on a transformer encoder, so it generates and
shares all of its outputs at once (Hitter, 2023). The difference in trans-
formers generally means that GPT models are better at creating new
human-like text, while BERT models are better at classification and
summary tasks.
To be accurate, LLMs must be trained on large amounts of data.
ChatGPT was trained using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
(RLHF) (Somoye, 2023). The model first went through a process of su-
pervised fine-tuning, during which OpenAI trainers acted as both the
human user and the AI bot. During this process, the trainers mimicked the
way that humans communicate by creating a conversational sequence.
Then, the dialogue was added to the model’s dataset to improve it for
conversational use. Later, the chatbot was improved using reinforced
learning (i.e., rewarding the bot for generating correct responses and
grading them from best to worst) (Somoye, 2023). Finally, OpenAI
fine-tuned the model using its own Proximal Policy Optimization tech-
nique (Somoye, 2023). Bard’s training process included using unsuper-
vised learning techniques in which a large amount of unlabeled data was
input into the model (Oppermann, 2023). Then, the model processed the
text to find statistical patterns and relationships, allowing Bard to
generate appropriate responses for a wide variety of user inputs. Bard
was also fine-tuned using supervised learning (Oppermann, 2023). The
size of ChatGPT’s training dataset was 175 billion parameters (for GPT-3)
from five different sources, while Bard’s was 1.56 trillion (Walsh, 2023;
Gautam, 2023).
3. Ask Me Anything (AMA): the series of questions and answers
In this analysis, each chatbot was asked the same question and their
answers were compared. We provide our commentary, as taken from
leading fire-based organizations and literature, to most of the provided
questions to assess the responses received from each chatbot. We first
start with two historical questions; then, we dive into more technical
questions. The presented questions stem from pure professional curiosity
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
and tend to favor research and educational components. Toward the end
of this analysis, we present five questions aimed at exploring the
knowledge span, limitations, and possible imagination of ChatGPT and
Bard. Overall, we present the outcome of 27 questions and answers.
3.1. Question no. 1: What is fire engineering?
According to the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) (SFPE,
2023), fire protection engineering is defined as:
Fire protection engineering is the application of science and engi-
neering principles. The principles when working with fire protection
relate to protecting both people and the environment, built and nat-
ural, from the hazards of fire. This includes analyzing fire hazards,
mitigating fire through design and construction of buildings, exami-
nation of building uses and industrial processes, and design, instal-
lation and maintenance of fire detection and suppression systems.
Additionally, fire safety engineering is defined generally according to
BS 7974 (Christian, 2003) as:
The application of scientific and engineering principles to the pro-
tection of people, property and the environment from fire.
Each of the chatbot’s answers is listed herein:
OpenAI ChatGPT,
Fire engineering is a multidisciplinary field that focuses on under-
standing fire behavior, prevention, protection, and suppression
within the built environment. It involves the application of scientific
and engineering principles to assess, design, and implement fire
safety strategies in buildings, infrastructure, and industrial facilities.
Fire engineering aims to minimize the risk of fire, protect lives,
property, and the environment, and ensure the continuity of opera-
tions in the event of a fire. It encompasses various aspects of fire
safety, including:
Fire prevention: Developing strategies to reduce the likelihood of
fires, such as proper design, material selection, and adherence to
building codes and regulations.
Fire protection: Designing and implementing passive fire protection
systems, such as fire-resistant construction materials, compartmen-
tation, fire doors, and fire-resistant glazing, to prevent fire spread and
maintain structural integrity during a fire.
Fire detection and suppression: Designing and integrating active fire
protection systems, such as fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and
gaseous fire suppression systems, to detect and control fires at an
early stage.
Smoke control and management: Designing ventilation systems and
smoke control measures to manage smoke spread.
Egress and evacuation: Designing and planning safe and efficient
means of escape, such as exit routes, emergency lighting, signage, and
occupant load calculations to ensure that occupants can evacuate a
building quickly and safely during a fire or other emergency.
Human behavior in fire: Understanding how people react in fire sit-
uations, including factors like perception, decision-making, and
movement patterns, which play a crucial role in developing effective
evacuation strategies and fire safety systems.
Fire risk assessment: Identifying potential fire hazards, evaluating
their likelihood and consequences, and recommending appropriate
mitigation measures to minimize risk.
Performance-based design: Developing fire safety solutions based on
performance objectives rather than prescriptive requirements, which
allows for greater flexibility and innovation in design while still
meeting fire safety goals.
Fire investigation and analysis: Investigating the causes, origin, and
development of fires, as well as analyzing their effects on structures,
materials, and occupants, to improve fire safety knowledge and
inform future designs.
Codes, standards, and regulations: Developing, interpreting, and
applying fire safety codes, standards, and regulations that govern the
design, construction, and operation of buildings and facilities
Education and training: Educating and training professionals, such as
architects, engineers, and building officials, in fire safety principles
and practices
Firefighting tactics and strategy: Collaborating with fire service
personnel to develop effective firefighting tactics, strategies, and
incident command systems, taking into account the unique challenges
posed by different types of structures and fire scenarios.
Interdisciplinary collaboration: Fire engineering often requires
collaboration with other disciplines, such as architecture, structural
engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and
urban planning, to develop comprehensive and effective fire safety
solutions for various types of buildings and environments.
Fire protection economics: Analyzing the costs and benefits of various
fire protection strategies and systems to optimize resources and
achieve the desired level of fire safety while balancing financial
constraints.
Google Bard
Fire engineering is the application of scientific and engineering
principles to protect people, property, and their environments from
the harmful and destructive effects of fire and smoke. It is a multi-
disciplinary field that encompasses the study of fire dynamics, fire
suppression, fire protection systems, fire safety engineering, and fire
investigation.
Fire engineers use their knowledge of fire science to design and
implement fire safety measures in buildings, industrial facilities, and
other structures. They also develop and test new fire suppression
technologies. Fire engineers are also involved in fire investigation,
which is the process of determining the cause and origin of fires.
Fire engineering is a critical part of the fire service. Fire engineers
work with firefighters and other first responders to ensure that they
have the tools and resources they need to protect the public from fire.
Here are some of the tasks of a fire engineer:
Design and implement fire safety measures in buildings, industrial
facilities, and other structures.
Develop and test new fire suppression technologies.
Conduct fire investigations.
Work with firefighters and other first responders to ensure that they
have the tools and resources they need to protect the public from fire.
Question 1 was intended to test the chatbots’understanding of min-
ute differences in the definitions of fire protection and safety engineer-
ing. Thus, the question was simply posed as “fire engineering”. Generally,
fire protection engineering refers to the implementation of prevention
measures such as suppression and detection devices (sprinklers and
alarms, respectively). On the other hand, fire safety engineering refers to
the engineering design of a building or structure to prevent fire spread
and/or loss of structural integrity. Neither Bard nor ChatGPT were able to
communicate the difference between the two definitions. Instead, they
combined the two. Given the general nature of the question posed to the
chatbots, their answers seem acceptable. While ChatGPT provides a more
detailed response, Bard’s response is efficient. A fire engineer is a
multidisciplinary engineer involved in a variety of fire-related scientific
items (as detailed by ChatGPT). It would perhaps be helpful to
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
understand, however, that fire engineers do not provide all the tasks
detailed in the chatbots’responses in their specialized roles at one time.
Instead, they may be involved with one or more engineers depending on
their line of work.
3.2. Question no. 2: Who was the world's first fire engineer?
While the first fire engineer is hard to trace, the early account of
firefighting is said to have begun in ancient Rome (Dillon and Garland,
2013).
In terms of the examined chatbots,
OpenAI ChatGPT,
It is challenging to pinpoint the world's first fire engineer, as the
history of fire engineering spans across centuries and various cultures,
with many individuals contributing to the development of fire safety
practices and technologies over time.
One of the early pioneers in the field of fire safety was Benjamin
Franklin, who founded the Union Fire Company in Philadelphia in
1736, the first volunteer fire company in America. While Franklin was
not a fire engineer in the modern sense, his contributions to fire safety
and firefighting were crucial in laying the groundwork for the field.
The modern concept of fire engineering began to take shape in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the industrial revolution and
rapid urbanization led to new challenges in fire safety. Henry Grattan
(H.G.) Tyrrell was an influential figure during this period. An Amer-
ican civil engineer, he published the book "Fire Engineering" in 1919,
which was one of the first comprehensive texts on the subject.
It is important to note that fire engineering has evolved through the
collective efforts of many individuals, each contributing to the
knowledge and practices we have today. While it is difficult to
identify a single "first fire engineer," these early pioneers played a
vital role in shaping the field.
Google Bard
The world's first fire engineer was James Braidwood, a Scottish fire-
fighter who was the first "Master of Engines", in the world's first
municipal fire service in Edinburgh in 1824. He was the first director
of the London Fire Engine Establishment (the brigade which was
eventually to become the London Fire Brigade). He is credited with
the development of the modern municipal fire service.
Braidwood was born in Edinburgh in 1791. He joined the Edinburgh
Fire Brigade in 1804 and quickly rose through the ranks. In 1824, he
was appointed as the first "Master of Engines", a position responsible
for the training and management of the fire brigade. Braidwood was a
pioneer in the field of fire engineering. He developed new techniques
for firefighting, such as the use of steam pumps and ladders. He also
developed new fire prevention measures, such as the use of fire es-
capes and sprinkler systems. Braidwood died in 1861 while fighting a
fire in London. He is considered to be one of the founding fathers of
fire engineering.
Bard cites Wikipedia (James Braidwood).
Overall, it is unrealistic to expect the chatbots to pinpoint a single
person as the first fire engineer since we also collectively do not know the
identity of who could be considered the first fire engineer. However,
ChatGPT seems limited in its history of firefighting and engineer-
ing—listing only American history. Though Bard pinpoints an interna-
tional firefighter as the first fire engineer, the chatbot’s response is also
limited by the timeframe. It seems that both ChatGPT and Bard are un-
able to recount history earlier than the Middle Ages.
Now, we move toward more scientific questions.
3.3. Question no. 3: Explain the process of fire growth in a compartment
According to D.D. Drysdale in the Encyclopedia of Physical Science
and Technology (Drysdale, 2003):
The term “compartment fire”is commonly used to describe a fire in a
room or “compartment”within a building. If given sufficient fuel and
ventilation, the fire will progress through three main stages:
1. The growth, or preflashover, stage, when the fire is localized in the
vicinity of its origin and the average temperature in the compartment
is still relatively low.
2. The fully developed, or postflashover, fire, during which all the
combustible items are involved and flames appear to fill the entire
volume and emerge from the ventilation openings.
3. The decay period, when the fire begins to die down as the fuel is
consumed. This is formally identified as the period after the average
temperature has fallen to 80% of the maximum achieved during stage
2.
The average temperature in the lower part of the compartment will
remain low during the growth period, although a layer of hot smoke will
accumulate under the ceiling and will increase in depth and temperature
as the fire grows in size. The development of this layer is the key factor in
the way in which a fire progresses to the fully developed stage. However,
it is possible for a fire to self-extinguish if the item first ignited burns out
before other items can become involved, or to be held in check if it be-
comes starved of air (oxygen). This can occur in a space where there is
inadequate ventilation, as will occur if the doors and windows are closed
and well fitting.
Then, the answers of each of the examined chatbots are listed herein.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
The process of fire growth in a compartment typically involves four
stages: ignition, growth, fully developed, and decay. Here is a
breakdown of each stage:
Ignition: The ignition stage is the initial point at which the fuel source
is ignited by an external heat source. This could be a spark, a flame, or
any other ignition source that can provide enough heat to ignite the
fuel.
Growth: Once the fuel source has been ignited, the fire begins to grow
rapidly. At this stage, the heat generated by the fire causes the sur-
rounding fuel to heat up and release combustible gases, which in turn
feed the fire and cause it to grow larger.
Fully developed: In the fully developed stage, the fire has reached its
maximum size and intensity. The heat generated by the fire is so
intense that it begins to affect the surrounding air temperature and
pressure, causing the fire to spread rapidly throughout the
compartment.
Decay: As the fuel source is consumed, the fire begins to slow down
and eventually extinguishes. This stage is called the decay stage.
Google Bard
Fire growth in a compartment is a complex process that is affected by
a number of factors, including the type of fuel, the shape of the fuel,
the ventilation conditions, and the presence of ignition sources.
The rate of fire growth in a compartment can be divided into three
stages:
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
The incipient stage is the initial stage of fire growth, when the fire is
small and easily extinguished.
The growth stage is the stage in which the fire grows rapidly and
becomes more difficult to extinguish.
The flashover stage is the stage in which the fire reaches its maximum
intensity and becomes very difficult to extinguish.
The incipient stage is the most critical stage in fire growth, as it is the
stage when the fire can be most easily extinguished. If the fire is not
extinguished during this stage, it will continue to grow and become
more difficult to extinguish.
The growth stage is the stage in which the fire grows rapidly and
becomes more difficult to extinguish. During this stage, the fire will
spread to new areas and become more difficult to contain.
The flashover stage is the stage in which the fire reaches its maximum
intensity and becomes very difficult to extinguish. During this stage,
the fire will produce a large amount of heat and smoke, making it
difficult for firefighters to approach.
Both chatbots generally provide proper responses. ChatGPT’s answer
most closely matches the definition provided, only adding ignition. For
Bard, the last stage was labeled the “flashover stage”. In general, flash-
over is the point in time in which fuel is instantaneously ignited during a
fire and occurs at approximately 600 C(Drysdale, 2011). We generally
consider flashover as the transition point between the growth and fully
developed phases, not a stage itself. Despite the incorrect label of the
phase, Bard’s description is correct—a fully developed fire is one at its
maximum intensity and is very hard to extinguish. However, Bard (as
well as ChatGPT) fails to mention that a fire may become fully developed
without reaching a flashover and that flashover will not always occur
(Kodur and Naser, 2020). For flashover to occur, the fuel must have an
adequate amount of heat energy and oxygen. For example, the presence
of a closed door versus an open one in a room with a fire may be enough
to prevent flashover due to the change in the amount of available oxygen
(i.e., a closed door provides less oxygen and thus reduces the possibility
of flashover). Additionally, Bard did not include the decay phase of a
compartment fire. A fire enters this stage as the available fuel is
consumed or oxygen becomes limited. This may occur due if the com-
partment’s ventilation is inadequate (i.e. the fire consumes more oxygen
than can be replaced from the compartment’s exterior) (Kodur and Naser,
2020). With decreasing oxygen, the heat release rate will also decrease
(Kodur and Naser, 2020). Over time, the temperature also diminishes,
although it may remain high for some time if the insulation is sufficient.
Instead of including the decay phase, Bard instead commented on ways to
reduce fire spread, which was not asked in the question.
3.4. Question no. 4: Describe the mechanism(s) of fire-induced spalling of
concrete
The mechanisms behind fire-induced concrete spalling are complex
and vary between four main theories: 1) pore pressure accumulation due
to evaporating moisture, 2) the generation of thermal gradients, 3) the
initiation of internal cracking due to difference in thermal expansion
between concrete mixture components, 4) and temperature-induced
degradation of strength loss (Khoury, 2000;Liu et al., 2018).
Then, the answers of each of the examined chatbots are listed herein.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
Fire-induced spalling of concrete occurs when the surface layers of
concrete are exposed to high temperatures, causing the outer layer of
the concrete to break away from the rest of the structure. The
mechanism of spalling is complex and can be influenced by a variety
of factors, including the type and quality of the concrete, the heating
rate, the temperature distribution within the concrete, and the pres-
ence of moisture.
There are several mechanisms that can contribute to fire-induced
spalling of concrete:
Moisture-induced spalling: When concrete is exposed to high tem-
peratures, the moisture within the concrete can evaporate rapidly,
creating steam pressure within the concrete. If the steam pressure is
not able to escape, it can build up and cause the concrete to crack and
spall.
Thermal gradient-induced spalling: As the surface layer of the con-
crete is heated by the fire, it expands rapidly, creating thermal stresses
within the concrete. If the thermal stresses exceed the tensile strength
of the concrete, it can crack and spall.
Chemical decomposition-induced spalling: High temperatures can
cause chemical reactions within the concrete that can weaken the
bonds between the cement paste and the aggregates. This can lead to
the formation of voids within the concrete, which can cause it to crack
and spall.
Mechanical damage-induced spalling: The stresses caused by the
expansion of steel reinforcement bars within the concrete can cause it
to crack and spall. This is particularly true if the steel reinforcement
has been corroded due to exposure to moisture.
Google Bard
Fire-induced spalling of concrete is a complex phenomenon that is not
fully understood. However, it is known that the following mecha-
nisms can contribute to spalling:
Temperature-induced expansion and contraction. When concrete is
heated, it expands. When it cools, it contracts. This expansion and
contraction can cause the concrete to crack.
Pore pressure buildup. When water evaporates from concrete, it
leaves behind empty pores. These pores can fill with water vapor,
which can increase the pressure inside the concrete. This pressure can
cause the concrete to crack.
Chemical reactions. When concrete is exposed to high temperatures,
it can undergo chemical reactions that can weaken the concrete.
These reactions can also cause the concrete to crack.
Micro-cracking. Even before fire-induced spalling occurs, concrete
can undergo micro-cracking. These cracks are too small to be seen
with the naked eye, but they can weaken the concrete. When fire-
induced spalling occurs, these micro-cracks can grow larger and
cause the concrete to spall.
Both chatbots have precise responses to this question. Spalling is a
complex phenomenon that takes place in concrete exposed to high
temperatures. In addition to listing the mechanisms of spalling, ChatGPT
additionally defines spalling while Bard does not.
3.5. Question no. 5: In terms of beams and columns, what is the best
geometric shape that limits heat transfer?
The work of Kodur and Mackinnon (Kodur and MacKinnon) has
shown that circular shapes are known to have lower heat transfer than
edged shapes.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
In general, hollow or tubular shapes can provide better thermal
insulation than solid shapes because they create an insulating air gap.
This reduces the overall heat transfer through the structural element.
Circular or rectangular hollow sections are commonly used as col-
umns, while hollow I-beams or hollow rectangular beams can be used
for beams.
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
6
Google Bard
The best geometric shape for beams and columns in terms of heat
transfer is a square or rectangular cross-section. This is because the
corners of a square or rectangle are rounded, which reduces the
amount of surface area that is exposed to the air. This in turn reduces
the amount of heat that can be lost from the beam or column.
A follow-up question was aimed at Bard, I think the best shape would be
a circular cross section.
A circular cross-section is not the best shape for beams and columns in
terms of heat transfer. A circular cross-section has a larger surface
area than a square or rectangular cross-section, which means that it
will lose heat more quickly. In addition, a circular cross-section is not
as efficient as a square or rectangular cross-section in terms of
building structures.
However, a circular cross-section is the best shape for beams and
columns in terms of strength. A circular cross-section is the strongest
shape because it has the least amount of material for the same amount
of volume.
ChatGPT provides the correct answer to this question, while Bard’s
answer is incorrect. Bard states that the best geometric shape for heat
transfer is a square or rectangular cross-section because “the corners of a
square or rectangle are rounded.”Clearly, this is not correct. Even with a
follow-up question, the chatbot is still incorrect and states that square/
rectangular sections lose heat more quickly due to their larger surface
area.
3.6. Question no. 6: What is the expected fire resistance in terms of hours
of a square reinforced concrete column with a width of 400 mm and a
length of 4 m?
According to Eurocode 2 (Eurocode, 2004) (Tables 5.2a and b), the
expected fire resistance of a square reinforced concrete column with a
width of 400 mm and a length of 4 m that is exposed on more than one
side can vary between 90 and 120 min.
Then, the answers of each of the examined chatbots are listed herein.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
The expected fire resistance of a square reinforced concrete column
with a width of 400 mm and a length of 4 m will depend on several
factors, including the thickness and quality of the concrete, the size
and spacing of the reinforcement bars, and the type and duration of
the fire exposure.
Based on typical fire resistance ratings for reinforced concrete col-
umns, a square reinforced concrete column with a width of 400 mm
and a length of 4 m would be expected to have a fire resistance rating
of approximately 2–4 hours. However, it is important to note that the
actual fire resistance may vary depending on the specific design and
construction details of the column, as well as the type and duration of
the fire exposure.
Google Bard
The expected fire resistance of a square reinforced concrete column
with a width of 400 mm and a length of 4 m is 2 hours.
Here, Bard has the correct answer. 2 h is the high-end fire resistance
for the described column. We can consider ChatGPT’s response incorrect
since 2–4 h greatly exceed the expected fire resistance according to
Eurocode. If one were to rely on this information, the column would fail
much before ChatGPT specified, and thus could cause structural damage
and potential life safety issues.
3.7. Question no. 7: What is the percentage of cost associated with fire
design in terms of a typical building's design?
Common practice dictates that the answer is between 3 and 5%.
Then, the answers of each of the examined chatbots are listed herein.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
The percentage of cost associated with fire design in a typical build-
ing's design can vary widely depending on various factors such as the
type of building, its size, and the complexity of the fire safety system.
However, generally, the cost of fire design typically ranges from 2% to
5% of the total construction cost.
While fire design may represent a relatively small percentage of the
total construction cost, it is a critical component of building design
that can have a significant impact on the safety of occupants and the
protection of property. Investing in high-quality fire design can help
to reduce the risk of fire-related damage, minimize insurance costs,
and ensure the long-term safety and viability of the building.
Google Bard
The cost of fire design is typically 2–5% of the total cost of a building's
construction. This means that for a $100 million building, the cost of
fire design would be $2–5 million.
The cost of fire design is an important part of the total cost of a
building's construction. By investing in fire design, building owners
can help to ensure that their buildings are safe and compliant with fire
codes.
This question refers to the construction and fabrication cost of fire
protection and suppression systems as a portion of total construction
costs. Both chatbots’answers match our domain knowledge. It is also
worth noting that the “cost of fire design”may also refer to the cost
associated with the analysis and design of items such as fire loading,
structural design (including but not limited to beam/column design,
passive protection methods, etc. For fire) by engineers as office or desk-
based work, although this was not the intention of the question. Common
practice dictates this to be between 5 and 15% of total engineering design
cost. Neither chatbot mentioned this type of cost.
3.8. Question no. 8: What is fire evacuation?
According to Cambridge English Dictionary (McIntosh, 2023), evac-
uation is:
“the act of moving people from a dangerous place to somewhere safe”
Similarly, emergency evacuation is the urgent, immediate egress or
escape of people away from an area that contains an immediate threat to
lives or property. Evacuation can be small- or large-scale and due to a
variety of reasons (including but not limited to fire, etc.). In general,
evacuation can be divided into two main phases: pre-evacuation and
movement. In the pre-evacuation phase, evacuees gather personal items
and make decisions about how they will evacuate from danger. This
phase includes detection, decision, alarm, and reaction. In the movement
phase, evacuees physically move toward safety using the decisions they
made in the previous phase (Hurley et al., 2016).
OpenAI ChatGPT,
Fire evacuation is the process of safely and efficiently moving people
away from a building, structure, or area where a fire is present or has
the potential to occur. The primary goal of fire evacuation is to protect
the lives of the occupants by minimizing injuries, fatalities, and
exposure to toxic smoke and gases.
Fire evacuation procedures typically involve several key components:
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
1. Early detection and warning: Fire alarms and smoke detectors play a
crucial role in alerting occupants of a fire and initiating the evacua-
tion process.
2. Evacuation routes and exits: Pre-determined evacuation routes and
clearly marked exits should be established in a building to guide oc-
cupants to safety. These routes should be free from obstructions and
provide the shortest, safest path to the outside.
3. Fire drills and training: Regular fire drills and safety training help
familiarize building occupants with evacuation procedures, ensuring
that they know how to respond quickly and calmly in the event of a
fire.
4. Assembly points: Designated assembly areas outside the building
should be established, allowing evacuees to gather and be accounted
for, and ensuring that emergency responders have clear access to the
building.
5. Emergency communication: Effective communication during an
evacuation is essential for relaying important information, such as the
location of the fire or any changes in the evacuation plan.
Fire evacuation plans should be tailored to the specific needs of the
building and its occupants, taking into consideration factors such as
building layout, occupancy levels, and the presence of individuals
with disabilities or other special needs.
Google Bard
Afire evacuation is the process of removing people from a building or
other structure that is on fire. The goal of a fire evacuation is to ensure
the safety of all occupants by removing them from the fire and smoke
as quickly as possible. Fire evacuations are typically carried out by
trained professionals, such as firefighters or building security
personnel. However, it is important for all occupants of a building to
be familiar with the fire evacuation plan and to know how to exit the
building safely in the event of a fire.
The following are some important steps to take in the event of a fire
evacuation:
Stay calm. Panicking can lead to injuries and can make it difficult to
evacuate the building safely.
Follow the instructions of the fire department or other emergency
personnel. They are trained to ensure the safety of all occupants and
will direct you to the safest exit route.
If you are unable to evacuate on your own, call for help. The fire
department will be able to provide assistance and help you to evac-
uate the building safely.
Once you have evacuated the building, stay away from the area until
it is safe to return. The fire department will need time to extinguish
the fire and to ensure that the area is safe for occupants to return.
Fire evacuations are a serious matter, but by following the steps
above, you can help to ensure your safety and the safety of others in
the event of a fire.
ChatGPT and Bard both provide valid responses to this question. An
evacuation can be prompted for a variety of scenarios and involve many
different methods of reaching safety. Most importantly, it is the move-
ment of people away from an area of danger. Additionally, Bard is correct
in noting that evacuation can be planned or unplanned. However, a
planned evacuation does not constitute a well-organized one or one
without urgency/chaos. It is important to note that evacuation does not
require a mechanical method of transportation, as Bard describes (buses,
boats, helicopters, etc.). Evacuation can also describe the movement of
people by walking/running, such as when building occupants evacuate
during a fire or fire drill. We would like to point out that Proulx (1993)
and Fahy (Fahy and Proulx, 2009) offered explanations for debunking the
myth of panic through stress models. This concept has been clearly
adopted by Bard.
3.9. Question no. 9: What are the two primary phases of a building
evacuation?
According to Rahouti et al. (2020):
The engineering evacuation timeline divides the evacuation process
broadly into two evacuation performance phases following on from
the fire detection and notification phases: pre-evacuation and evac-
uation movement. The pre-evacuation stage extends from the notifi-
cation of the population (i.e. the point at which they might be aware
of the incident) to the moment when an evacuee starts moving to-
wards a place of safety; the movement phase starts directly after the
pre-evacuation phase, and ends once the evacuee has reached a place
of safety.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
A building evacuation typically consists of two primary phases:
Alert and notification phase: This phase involves detecting the
emergency, such as a fire or a security threat, and activating the alarm
system. In this stage, occupants are alerted to the emergency, and the
appropriate authorities, like the fire department or police, are noti-
fied. The alarm system may include visual and audible signals, like
flashing lights and sirens, to ensure that all building occupants,
including those with hearing or visual impairments, are informed of
the need to evacuate. Clear communication of the emergency situa-
tion and evacuation instructions is crucial during this phase.
Evacuation and movement phase: This phase involves the actual
process of moving occupants from the building to a safe location
outside. It starts with occupants leaving their immediate area and
progresses to them following designated evacuation routes towards
exits. The evacuation process may be structured differently depend-
ing on the building's layout and the nature of the emergency. For
example, a phased evacuation could be implemented for large, multi-
story buildings, where certain floors or sections are evacuated first to
avoid congestion and bottlenecks. In some cases, a shelter-in-place
strategy might be used if evacuation is deemed more dangerous
than staying inside the building. This phase also includes accounting
for all occupants at the assembly point and ensuring that everyone has
safely evacuated.
Google Bard
The two primary phases of a building evacuation are:
Alarm and notification: This phase involves alerting people to the
danger and instructing them to evacuate. This can be done through a
variety of methods, such as using a public address system, ringing
bells, or using flashing lights.
Evacuation: This phase involves people leaving the building and
going to a safe location. This can be done through a variety of
methods, such as using stairs, elevators, or ladders.
Both chatbots have responded correctly to this question. In general,
evacuation consists of a pre-evacuation phase and a movement phase.
Additionally, both platforms mention a broader plan for emergency
response that includes pre-planning, clear communication, and regular
practice; while this does not directly answer the question, it is an
appreciated addition. Both chatbots label the first phase the “alarm and
notification phase”. This is mostly correct, given that building occupants
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
8
are generally notified of an emergency via fire alarm (or another type).
However, it is important to note the differences in how each chatbot
described the phase. For ChatGPT, the alarm and notification stage de-
scribes the actions the evacuees must go through before the evacuation or
movement phase. For Bard, the phase was described not for the evacuees
but instead for fire safety officials or others who can alert evacuees to
danger. In an evacuation, the pre-movement phase most closely aligns
with the evacuees' actions, not the fire safety officials.
3.10. Question no. 10: Who is the most vulnerable type of person for
injury/death in a building fire?
According to researchers from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (Gilbert and Butry, 2018), older persons (elderly), young
children, and males are some of the most vulnerable people to fire injury
and death.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
During a building fire, certain groups of people are more vulnerable to
injury or death due to factors such as limited mobility, cognitive
impairments, or other specific needs. The most vulnerable groups
include:
Elderly individuals: Older people may have reduced mobility, slower
reaction times, and age-related health issues, which can hinder their
ability to evacuate quickly and safely.
Children: Young children, particularly those below the age of five, are
at greater risk due to their limited understanding of danger, inability
to follow complex instructions, and dependence on adult caregivers
for guidance and protection.
People with disabilities: Individuals with physical, sensory, or
cognitive disabilities may face challenges during evacuation, such as
navigating through a building, understanding alarms, or communi-
cating with others.
People with chronic illnesses or medical conditions: Those with
chronic health issues may have reduced stamina, limited mobility, or
other factors that hinder their ability to evacuate efficiently.
Pregnant women: Pregnancy may limit mobility, stamina, or the
ability to navigate obstacles, increasing the risk of injury or death
during a building fire.
Non-native speakers or those with limited language proficiency:
People who do not understand the local language may have difficulty
comprehending evacuation instructions, announcements, or other
critical information, which can impede their ability to evacuate
safely.
Google Bard
The most vulnerable type of person for injury/death in a building fire
is children. Children are more likely to be injured or killed in a fire
because they are:
More likely to be home alone when a fire starts
Less likely to know how to escape a fire
More likely to be curious and explore, which could lead them into
dangerous areas
More likely to be unable to self-rescue
Children are also more likely to be injured or killed in a fire because
they have a smaller body surface area, which means they absorb heat
more quickly. They also have a higher respiratory rate, which means
they inhale smoke and fumes more easily.
ChatGPT seems to have answered this question thoroughly, even
pointing out that non-native speakers and pregnant women are at addi-
tional risk for injury/death in building fires. Bard, on the other hand,
only identified one type of person at risk during fires: children. While
children are at increased risk during fires, they are not necessarily the
most vulnerable. This response fails to include the elderly and people
with disabilities, who are most commonly cited as having the most lim-
itations during evacuations.
3.11. Question no. 11: Why are people with disabilities more vulnerable
than those without disabilities in building fires?
In general, people with disabilities are more vulnerable than those
without disabilities in building fires because they experience limited
mobility or difficulty in understanding the severity of the fire scenario
(i.e., people with sensory disabilities may not hear the fire alarm, and
those with cognitive disabilities may not be able to make informed
decisions about the fire). Thus, they may move slower, have difficulty
traversing some egress components such as stairs, or react slower than
the non-disabled population. Ultimately, their rate of evacuation may
be too slow compared to the rate of fire spread and result in injury or
death. Additionally, egress routes and evacuation considerations are
rarely geared toward people with disabilities (Hostetter and Naser,
2022). This may increase their vulnerability in emergency situations.
4. OpenAI ChatGPT
People with disabilities are often more vulnerable than those without
disabilities during building fires for several reasons:
Limited mobility: Individuals with physical disabilities, such as those
who use wheelchairs, walkers, or crutches, may face challenges
navigating through narrow corridors, stairwells, or uneven surfaces
during an evacuation. Their movement speed may also be slower,
which can put them at a greater risk in a rapidly developing fire
situation.
Sensory impairments: People with visual or hearing impairments may
have difficulty receiving or interpreting fire alarms and emergency
instructions. For instance, a person with a hearing impairment might
not hear an audible alarm, while someone with a visual impairment
might struggle to navigate through a smoke-filled environment or
read emergency exit signs.
Cognitive impairments: Individuals with cognitive disabilities, such
as intellectual disabilities or dementia, may have difficulty under-
standing the urgency of a fire situation, following evacuation in-
structions, or making quick decisions during an emergency.
Communication barriers: People with speech impairments or lan-
guage disorders might have trouble communicating their needs or
location to emergency responders, which could hinder their rescue or
evacuation.
Dependence on assistive devices or personal assistance: Some in-
dividuals with disabilities rely on assistive devices, such as wheel-
chairs or hearing aids, or require personal assistance from caregivers
during daily activities. In an emergency, these individuals may need
extra time or assistance to evacuate, which can increase their
vulnerability.
Google Bard
People with disabilities are more vulnerable than those without dis-
abilities in building fires for a number of reasons:
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
They may have difficulty escaping a fire. People with disabilities may
have difficulty using stairs or elevators, and they may not be able to
move quickly enough to escape a fire.
They may have difficulty hearing or seeing a fire. People with dis-
abilities may not be able to hear the smoke alarm or see the smoke or
flames.
They may have difficulty communicating with others. People with
disabilities may not be able to communicate with others in an
emergency situation.
They may have difficulty accessing emergency services. People with
disabilities may have difficulty accessing emergency services, such as
calling 911 or getting to a safe location.
People with disabilities other than physical disabilities are rarely
studied in terms of fire evacuation (Hostetter and Naser, 2022). Thus,
ChatGPT’s inclusion of people with sensory and cognitive disabilities is
an important inclusion in its response to this question. ChatGPT further
includes those with physical disabilities and communication barriers.
Each item discussed can play a significant role in evacuation and fire
vulnerability and is not present for the non-disabled population. Bard
presents a more general answer but explains how each factor can affect
the vulnerability of people with disabilities when compared to those
without. Each response is deemed good. We would like to note that the
specific US-based fire department (i.e., 911), as opposed to 999, is often
used in other countries.
4.1. Question no. 12: How can a wheelchair user evacuate from a
building?
According to Vanderbilt University’s Emergency Management
(Evacuation for persons with disabilities, 2023) division, the following
methods and techniques can be used by and for wheelchair users during
an evacuation:
Discuss needs and preferences. Non-ambulatory persons’needs and
preferences vary widely and therefore require you to ask them how
they would like to be assisted.
Wheelchair-user on the ground floor. Individuals who use wheel-
chairs may choose to evacuate themselves from the ground floor with
minimal assistance.
Ensure clear path of travel. If debris is present, it may be necessary to
clear a path to the exit.
No imminent danger. If there is no imminent danger, the person may
choose to remain in the building or to be directed to an Area of Refuge
(stairwell) until emergency personnel arrive. Fire Department
personnel, who are trained in emergency rescue, can then enter the
building and assist the person in exiting the building, either down the
stairs or using the emergency elevator recall.
Imminent danger. If danger is imminent and the individual does not
wish to be removed from his or her wheelchair, direct the person to
the nearest Area of Refuge (stairwell) and notify emergency personnel
immediately.
Carrying wheelchair users. Most wheelchairs are too heavy to carry
down stairs. If the person wishes to be carried down the stairs without
the wheelchair, consult with him or her on the best carry options, e.g.,
two-person cradle carry, office chair evacuation, or, if available, an
evacuation chair.
Mobility aids or devices. Return any mobility aids or devices to the
person as soon as possible
Notify emergency personnel. Notify emergency personnel immedi-
ately about any individuals remaining in the building and their
locations.
Additional methods of evacuation for wheelchair users include
evacuation chairs (or stair chairs) or elevators approved for fire evacu-
ation by the International Building Code (Butler et al., 2017).
OpenAI ChatGPT,
A wheelchair user can evacuate from a building using various stra-
tegies and techniques, depending on the availability of assistance, the
building's accessibility features, and the nature of the emergency.
Some methods to evacuate a wheelchair user include:
Evacuation chairs: Evacuation chairs are specifically designed for
emergency use, allowing wheelchair users to be safely transported
down stairs or across uneven surfaces. With assistance from trained
individuals, a wheelchair user can transfer to an evacuation chair and
be guided to safety.
Areas of refuge or safe waiting areas: In multi-story buildings with
accessible fire-rated stair enclosures or designated safe waiting areas,
a wheelchair user can wait for emergency responders to arrive and
assist with their evacuation. These areas should have a two-way
communication system to alert emergency personnel of their location.
Horizontal evacuation: Depending on the building's layout and the
emergency situation, a wheelchair user may be able to evacuate to a
safer area on the same floor, such as an adjacent fire compartment,
until emergency responders arrive to assist with the evacuation.
Using lifts or elevators: While it is generally advised not to use ele-
vators during a fire, some buildings may have specially designed
evacuation elevators that can be used by wheelchair users and other
individuals with limited mobility. These elevators are constructed
with additional fire protection features and can be controlled by
emergency responders or building staff during an evacuation.
Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs): A PEEP is a person-
alized evacuation plan developed in collaboration with the individ-
ual, building management, and emergency services. It outlines the
specific steps, support, and equipment needed for a wheelchair user to
evacuate safely in case of an emergency.
Buddy system: A wheelchair user can pair up with a designated
"buddy" or several buddies who can provide assistance during an
evacuation. Buddies should be familiar with the person's needs, the
use of evacuation equipment, and the planned evacuation route.
Google Bard
Here are some tips for wheelchair users to evacuate from a building:
Know your building's evacuation plan. Before an emergency happens,
make sure you know your building's evacuation plan. This plan
should include a way to alert people to the danger, a way to evacuate
people from the building, and a way to account for everyone who is in
the building.
Practice your plan. Once you know your building's evacuation plan,
make sure you practice it with everyone in your building. This will
help everyone know what to do in an emergency.
Be prepared to evacuate quickly. When an emergency happens, you
may not have much time to evacuate. Be prepared to evacuate quickly
and orderly.
Follow the instructions of emergency personnel. If you are evacuated
by emergency personnel, follow their instructions carefully. They will
help you to evacuate safely.
Here, ChatGPT provides the only deemed good response. Wheelchair
users may self-evacuate, relocate to an area of refuge and call for help,
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
10
recruit assistance from non-disabled evacuees to help them downstairs or
to use an evacuation chair, or use an elevator if it is approved for fire
evacuation. Bard does not provide specific methods for the evacuation of
wheelchair users. Instead, it generalizes fire safety tips for all evacuees. If
someone was relying on this information to help a wheelchair user
evacuate in an emergency, it would not provide sufficient help.
4.2. Question no. 13: What are the differences in evacuation between a
non-disabled person, physically disabled person, and cognitively disabled
person?
The evacuation process can vary significantly from a non-disabled
person to a physically disabled person, to a cognitively disabled per-
son. When compared to the non-disabled evacuee, people with physical
disabilities may require assistance to evacuate, travel at slower speeds, or
be required to use a different exit route if they cannot traverse stairs or
other obstacles (Hostetter and Naser, 2022). Cognitively disabled evac-
uees can generally use the same exit route as those without disabilities,
but they may take longer to make decisions in the pre-evacuation phase
(Hostetter and Naser, 2022). Additionally they may have trouble un-
derstanding or interpreting the event and have heightened emotions.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
The evacuation process can vary significantly for abled individuals,
physically disabled individuals, and individuals with cognitive dis-
abilities. Some of the differences in evacuation for these groups
include:
Abled person: Typically, an abled person can move more quickly and
navigate obstacles, such as stairs and narrow corridors, with relative
ease. They can usually understand and follow evacuation instructions,
respond to audible and visual alarms, and make quick decisions
during an emergency. In many cases, abled individuals can evacuate
independently without assistance.
Physically disabled person: Physically disabled individuals may have
limited mobility, which can make it challenging for them to navigate
stairs, corridors, or uneven surfaces. They might require assistance,
specialized equipment, or additional time to evacuate the building
safely. Wheelchair users, in particular, may need evacuation chairs,
accessible escape routes, or designated waiting areas for emergency
responders to assist with their evacuation.
People with sensory impairments, such as visual or hearing impair-
ments, might require alternative communication methods, such as
tactile or visual alarms, to receive emergency alerts and instructions.
Person with cognitive disability: Individuals with cognitive disabil-
ities, such as intellectual disabilities or dementia, may have difficulty
understanding the urgency of an emergency situation or following
complex evacuation instructions. They might require additional
guidance, support, or reassurance from others to evacuate safely.
Google Bard
The differences in evacuation between an abled person, a physically
disabled person and a person with cognitive disability can be sum-
marized as follows:
Ability to move: Abled people can move quickly and easily, while
physically disabled people may have difficulty moving or may not be
able to move at all. People with cognitive disabilities may have dif-
ficulty understanding instructions or may not be able to follow them.
Ability to see and hear: Abled people can see and hear, while physi-
cally disabled people may have difficulty seeing or hearing. People
with cognitive disabilities may have difficulty processing information
or may not be able to understand what is happening.
Ability to communicate: Abled people can communicate with others,
while physically disabled people may have difficulty communicating
or may not be able to communicate at all. People with cognitive
disabilities may have difficulty understanding what others are saying
or may not be able to respond to them.
Both chatbots have responded correctly to this question. For
ChatGPT, an important consideration in the pre-evacuation times of
cognitively disabled occupants was missed. A significant portion of the
evacuation for people with cognitive disabilities is spent in the pre-
evacuation phase when compared to non-disabled evacuees. For Bard,
those with sensory disorders (seeing or hearing impaired) were included
in the group with physical disabilities, despite research noting a differ-
ence between the two [ (Hostetter and Naser, 2022).
4.3. Question no. 14: How can researchers study evacuation?
In the past, researchers most commonly used real-time evacuation
experiments and historical events (such as the MGM Grand fire (Bryan,
1983) or 9/11 evacuation (Averill et al., 2005)) to study egress and
human behavior. More recently, evacuation simulation and modeling
have been introduced as a cost- and time-effective alternative (Kuli-
gowski, 2016;Kuligowski et al., 2010;Gwynne et al., 2020). This method
is more ethical, does not pose safety risks to participants, and does not
require a real building.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
Researchers can study evacuation without putting people at risk or
relying on actual natural disasters by using various methods,
including simulations, virtual reality, mathematical modeling, and
controlled experiments. These approaches help researchers under-
stand human behavior, assess evacuation procedures, and improve
safety measures. Some methods used to study evacuations are:
Computer simulations: Researchers use software to simulate evacua-
tions, considering factors like building layouts, exit locations, and
human behavior. By adjusting these parameters, they can analyze
how different scenarios impact evacuation efficiency and identify
potential bottlenecks or hazards.
Virtual reality: Virtual reality (VR) provides a safe and immersive
environment to study evacuation behavior. Participants equipped
with VR headsets experience realistic emergency situations, allowing
researchers to observe their decision-making and movement patterns
without exposing them to real danger.
Agent-based modeling: This approach involves creating computa-
tional models of individual agents (people) within a simulated envi-
ronment. Researchers can assign specific characteristics to these
agents, such as speed, decision-making abilities, and group dynamics,
to understand how they collectively impact evacuation outcomes.
Controlled experiments: Researchers can set up controlled experi-
ments in real-world settings, such as buildings or public spaces, to
study evacuation processes. These experiments may involve volun-
teers participating in mock evacuations, allowing researchers to
observe and analyze human behavior and the effectiveness of evac-
uation procedures.
Surveys and interviews: Researchers may collect data from in-
dividuals who have experienced real evacuations to gain insights into
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
their experiences and decision-making processes. This qualitative
data can help inform evacuation planning and improve procedures.
Analyzing historical data: Researchers can study past evacuation
events, including successes and failures, to identify patterns and learn
from past experiences. This analysis can provide valuable insights
into what works well and what needs improvement in evacuation
planning and execution.
Google Bard
Researchers can study evacuation in a number of ways without
putting people at risk or without true natural disaster. Some common
methods include:
Simulations: Researchers can use computer simulations to model the
behavior of people during an evacuation. These simulations can be
used to test different evacuation plans and to identify potential
problems.
Experiments: Researchers can conduct experiments in which people
are asked to evacuate a simulated disaster area. These experiments
can be used to study how people make decisions during an evacuation
and to identify factors that affect evacuation behavior.
Surveys: Researchers can conduct surveys to ask people about their
experiences during evacuations. These surveys can be used to learn
about how people perceive evacuations and to identify ways to
improve evacuation planning and execution.
Literature review: Researchers can review the literature on evacua-
tion to learn about the existing research on this topic. This literature
review can help researchers to identify the gaps in the research and to
develop new research questions.
Responses from both platforms precisely reflect the variety of ways in
which researchers can study evacuation today. Simulations, experiments,
surveys, and reviews of historical data or current literature can provide
important and new information that may improve future building design
or fire safety considerations. Researchers may additionally use a com-
bination of these techniques within their projects to supplement data or
improve one or more methods.
4.4. Question no. 15: Design an evacuation experiment in a high-story
building with a mixed population of occupants that are non-disabled,
physically disabled, and cognitively disabled
There are many factors that go into designing a real-time evacuation
experiment. This includes participant recruiting, identification of study
objectives, determination of location/date/time, data collection, anal-
ysis, and result reporting.
According to OpenAI ChatGPT,
To design an evacuation experiment in a high-story building with a
mixed population of occupants, including abled individuals, physi-
cally disabled individuals, and individuals with cognitive disabilities,
you will need to consider various factors to ensure safety, ethical
considerations, and effective data collection. Here's a suggested
outline for such an experiment:
1. Objective: Determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the building's
evacuation plan for a mixed population, identify potential bottlenecks
or challenges, and provide recommendations for improvement.
2. Participants: Recruit a diverse group of volunteers, including abled
individuals, physically disabled individuals (e.g., wheelchair users,
people with mobility impairments), and individuals with cognitive
disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, dementia). Ensure that
participants are fully informed about the experiment, its purpose, and
any potential risks involved. Obtain written consent from all partic-
ipants or their legal guardians, if applicable.
3. Building setup:
Ensure that the building meets accessibility standards and has
appropriate evacuation equipment, such as evacuation chairs, vi-
sual and audible alarms, and clear signage.
Designate accessible escape routes, areas of refuge or safe waiting
areas, and assembly points for all participants.
Consider any building-specific challenges or unique features, such
as the number of floors, stairwells, or elevator access.
4. Experiment procedure:
Divide the participants into groups based on their abilities or dis-
abilities, ensuring each group has a mix of the different
populations.
Assign a trained "buddy" or assistant to each participant with a
physical or cognitive disability to provide support and guidance
during the evacuation.
Conduct a briefing for all participants, explaining the evacuation
procedure, their roles, and any specific instructions.
Simulate an emergency, such as a fire or security threat, and acti-
vate the alarm system.
Begin the evacuation process, carefully monitoring and recording
the time taken for each group to reach the designated assembly
points.
Ensure that the experiment is supervised by trained personnel,
including emergency responders, researchers, and building staff, to
ensure the safety of all participants.
5. Data collection and analysis:
Collect data on the evacuation times, routes taken, bottlenecks or
challenges encountered, and any instances where assistance was
required.
Record any observations, feedback, or suggestions from partici-
pants and assistants.
Analyze the data to identify patterns or trends, such as areas where
evacuation was slower or more challenging for certain populations.
6. Recommendations and follow-up:
Based on the findings, provide recommendations for improving the
building's evacuation plan, such as modifying escape routes, adding
additional equipment, or providing additional training for staff and
emergency responders.
Share the results with building management, emergency services,
and participants to raise awareness and promote best practices for
inclusive evacuation planning.
If possible, implement the suggested improvements and conduct
follow-up experiments to evaluate their effectiveness.
7. Ethical considerations:
Ensure the safety of all participants by closely monitoring the
experiment and providing appropriate support as needed.
Obtain informed consent from all participants or their legal
guardians, if applicable.
Maintain confidentiality and anonymity of the participants' per-
sonal information.
Be prepared to halt the experiment if any safety concerns arise.
By conducting a well-designed evacuation experiment with a diverse
population, you can gather valuable insights into the effectiveness of
the building's evacuation plan and identify areas for improvement,
ultimately enhancing safety for all occupants.
Google Bard
Here is a possible design for an evacuation experiment in a high-story
building with a mixed population of occupants that are able, physi-
cally disabled, and cognitively disabled:
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
12
1. The experiment would be conducted in a simulated high-story
building. The building would be equipped with smoke detectors,
fire alarms, and sprinkler systems.
2. The building would be populated with a group of volunteers who
would represent the different types of occupants that would be found
in a real-world high-story building. The volunteers would be divided
into three groups: able-bodied occupants, physically disabled occu-
pants, and cognitively disabled occupants.
3. The experiment would be conducted in a controlled environment. The
volunteers would be instructed to evacuate the building in a simu-
lated fire. The evacuation would be timed to measure the time it took
each group of occupants to evacuate the building.
4. The results of the experiment would be analyzed to determine the
effectiveness of different evacuation strategies for different types of
occupants. The results could be used to develop new evacuation
strategies that would help to improve the safety of all occupants in a
high-story building.
While ChatGPT has the more detailed response, both platforms have
provided a proper outline for conducting an evacuation experiment. In
the case of ChatGPT, the response says that participants should be noti-
fied of their roles and given instructions on how to evacuate from the
building. In most cases, evacuees do not know about fire drills or real
evacuations prior to the event, and thus, this is not the best method for
conducting an experiment as it will not simulate the natural or candid
behavior of evacuees. Additionally, ChatGPT notes that each person with
a physical disability should be assigned a helper during the experiment.
This optimistically assumes that each person with a disability will have
an assistant at hand at the start of a fire scenario. In reality, this may not
be the case. People with physical disabilities may not need assistance to
evacuate from the building or be unable to find help. Regardless, to best
simulate a real fire scenario, those with disabilities should not be
assigned help prior to the evacuation. Bard, on the other hand, provides a
brief overview of the experiment. It divides people according to their
disabilities with the goal of determining effective evacuation strategies
for each population. This displays an overall good understanding of how
to conduct an experiment. Unlike ChatGPT, Bard does not seem to
mention or address the ethical component of evacuation experiments.
4.5. Question no. 16: What is smart firefighting?
The concept of smart firefighting is still new in the fire research and
engineering community. Arguably, it was first systematically summa-
rized in the 2015 NIST Report “Research Roadmap for Smart Fire
Fighting”(Bliss et al., 2015), which was before the concept of artificial
intelligence (AI), VR/AR became popular in the engineering community.
Today, different researchers and industries still do not have a unified
answer to the scope of smart firefighting and the definition of “smart”.
Then, the answers of each of the examined chatbots are listed herein.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
Smart firefighting refers to the use of advanced technologies, data
analysis, and communication systems to enhance the efficiency,
safety, and effectiveness of firefighting operations. The concept aims
to improve situational awareness, decision-making, and resource
management for both firefighters and incident commanders, ulti-
mately reducing the impact of fires on lives, property, and the
environment.
Key elements of smart firefighting can include:
1. Internet of Things (IoT) devices: Sensors and connected devices can
be used to monitor and collect real-time data on various parameters,
such as temperature, smoke levels, and building occupancy. This
information can help firefighters assess the situation and develop
appropriate response strategies.
2. Robotics and drones: Robots and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
can be employed to gather visual and thermal imagery, as well as to
access hazardous or hard-to-reach areas during a fire incident. This
can help firefighters assess the situation without putting their lives at
risk.
3. Advanced communication systems: Reliable and interoperable
communication systems are crucial for sharing information and
coordinating efforts between firefighters, incident commanders, and
other emergency responders.
4. Predictive analytics and data-driven decision-making: By analyzing
historical data and using machine learning algorithms, predictive
analytics can help identify potential fire hazards and inform proactive
measures to mitigate risks. Additionally, real-time data analysis
during an incident can help incident commanders make informed
decisions about resource allocation and firefighting strategies.
5. Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR): AR and VR technologies can
be used for immersive training simulations, allowing firefighters to
practice and develop their skills in a safe and controlled environment.
During an actual incident, AR can also be used to overlay crucial in-
formation, such as building layouts or the location of hazardous
materials, onto the firefighter's field of view.
By integrating these technologies and approaches, smart firefighting
aims to enhance the overall effectiveness and safety of fire response
efforts, ultimately saving lives and minimizing property damage.
Google Bard
Smart firefighting is a term used to describe the use of new technol-
ogies to improve the safety and efficiency of firefighting operations.
Smart firefighting technologies can include things like:
Sensors: Sensors can be used to detect fires, smoke, and other haz-
ards. This information can be used to alert firefighters to potential
problems and to help them to make better decisions about how to
respond to a fire.
Robotics: Robots can be used to perform dangerous or difficult tasks,
such as entering burning buildings or carrying heavy equipment. This
can help to protect firefighters from injury and can also help them to
work more efficiently.
Artificial intelligence: Artificial intelligence can be used to analyze
data from sensors and to make decisions about how to respond to a
fire. This can help firefighters to make better decisions more quickly,
which can save lives and property.
Smart firefighting is still in its early stages of development, but it has
the potential to revolutionize the way that firefighters work. By using
new technologies, firefighters can be better equipped to protect
themselves and the public from fires.
Here are some of the benefits of smart firefighting:
Increased safety: Smart firefighting technologies can help to protect
firefighters from injury or death. For example, robots can be used to
enter burning buildings and to carry out dangerous tasks, which can
help to keep firefighters safe.
Improved efficiency: Smart firefighting technologies can help fire-
fighters to work more efficiently. For example, sensors can be used to
detect fires early, which can give firefighters more time to respond
and to extinguish the fire.
Reduced costs: Smart firefighting technologies can help to reduce
the costs of firefighting. For example, robots can be used to perform
H. Hostetter et al. Natural Hazards Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
13
tasks that would otherwise require human labor, which can save
money.
Overall, smart firefighting is a promising new technology that has the
potential to improve the safety and efficiency of firefighting
operations.
ChatGPT does not mention the use of AI in smart firefighting, but it
includes other new concepts like AR/VR and robotic technologies. Bard
mentions AI, robotics, and sensors, but does not include communication
and data-driven technology. Thus, they both provide partial picture of
smart firefighting, but their answer is already as good as most fire re-
searchers. Bard also gives more information about how smart firefighting
can improve the current firefighting practices. Overall, Bard is more
informative.
4.6. Question no. 17: Can you predict the global wildfire activity in the
next 20 years under the influence of climate change?
This is a tough question. Most wildfire experts will be reluctant to give
some predictions, and even if they can, they usually can give some
prediction about the regime that they are familiar with rather than a
prediction in the global scale.
OpenAI ChatGPT,
As an AI language model, I cannot predict future events with cer-
tainty. However, I can provide you with an analysis based on current
scientific understanding and trends.
Climate change has already been linked to an increase in the fre-
quency, intensity, and duration of wildfires in various regions around
the world. Over the next 20 years, global wildfire activity is likely to
be significantly influenced by climate change due to the following
factors:
1. Rising temperatures: Higher temperatures can lead to increased
evaporation rates and drier vegetation, making it more susceptible to
ignition and burning. This can result in more frequent and severe
wildfires.
2. Changes in precipitation patterns: Climate change can lead to shifts in
precipitation patterns, causing some regions to become drier and
more prone to wildfires. Other regions may experience increased
precipitation, which can initially reduce fire risk, but may later lead to
increased vegetation growth that can serve as fuel for future fires.
3. Longer fire seasons: As temperatures rise and snowpacks melt earlier,
fire seasons are becoming longer in many regions. This provides a
larger window of time for wildfires to ignite and spread.
4. Increased frequency of extreme weather events: Climate change is
associated with more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves, and
wind events, all of which can exacerbate wildfire risk and contribute
to more intense fires.
5. Changes in vegetation and ecosystems: Climate change can alter the
distribution and composition of plant species, leading to changes in
the availability and flammability of fuels. In some cases, this may
result in increased fire risk.
Given these factors, it is expected that global wildfire activity will
likely continue to increase in the coming decades, particularly in re-
gions that are already prone to wildfires, such as the western United
States, Australia, the Mediterranean, and parts of South America and
Africa. However, it's important to note that regional variations and
uncertainties in climate projections make it difficult to predict the
precise extent of these changes.
To mitigate the impact of climate change on wildfires, it will be
essential to implement adaptive management strategies, such as
improved land-use planning, fire risk reduction measures, early
warning systems, and sustainable forest management practices. In
addition, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting global
efforts to address climate change will be crucial for minimizing future
wildfire risks.
Google Bard
Climate change is expected to have a significant impact on global
wildfire activity in the next 20 years. Rising temperatures and drier
conditions are likely to lead to more frequent and severe wildfires,
especially in areas that are already prone to fire. This could have a
devastating impact on ecosystems, communities, and economies.
Here are some of the ways that climate change could affect wildfire
activity:
Rising temperatures: Warmer temperatures will increase the rate of
evaporation, which will lead to drier conditions. This will make
vegetation more flammable, and will make it easier for fires to start
and spread.
Drier conditions: Droughts are becoming more common and severe
due to climate change. This will further reduce the amount of mois-
ture in vegetation, making it even more flammable.
More extreme weather events: Climate change is making extreme
weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and wildfires, more
common and severe. These events can create the perfect conditions
for wildfires to start and spread.
Changes in vegetation: Climate change is also causing changes in
vegetation patterns. Some plants are becoming more common, while
others are becoming less common. This could change the fuel load for
wildfires, making some areas more prone to fire than others.
The impacts of climate change on wildfire activity are likely to be felt
unevenly around the world. Some areas, such as the Western United
States, are already experiencing the effects of climate change on
wildfires. These areas are likely to see even more severe wildfires in
the future. Other areas, such as the Arctic, are also at risk from climate
change-induced wildfires.
Wildfire activity is a complex issue that is affected by many factors.
Climate change is just one of these factors, but it is a factor that is
expected to have a significant impact in the future. It