Discrepancy between High Fire Costs and Low Perception

Discrepancy between High Fire Costs and Low Perception

Discrepancy between High Fire Costs and Low Perception

Over time, a very high disparity between the high costs of managing fire and the low perception of fire has been noted. People from different nations and communities express lower perception towards the occurrence of a fire and its potential damage. As a consequence, the costs of managing fire have been increasing at a devastating rate. The damage associated with fire has also continued to skyrocket in numerous countries. Many factors explain these disparities.

To start with, people usually have the feeling that the chances of a fire occurring are very low. They tend to trust their ways of operation so much that they cannot foresee the occurrence of a fire. Given that most of all fire is caused due to people’s inattention, some people usually believe in being extra careful (American Insurance Association 1976). They think that if they express the maximum levels of caution, then chances of fire will be lowered. For this reason, such people do not take any measures to prevent it. They also do not take the necessary measures to mitigate the damage occurring in the event of a fire. When a fire occurs for one reason or the other, then the costs of its managing will be high. The amount of damage caused will also be great.

Secondly, a majority of people think that the responsibility of fire mitigation lies with the government and other authorities. To these people, anything to be done either to prevent a fire or mitigate its effects is solely the authorities’ role. This factor is very widespread among many nations. After conceiving such an ideology, a majority of people do not take any measure to reduce the danger of fire. When a fire occurs, that is when reality strikes everybody. People see things they should have done to avert the danger. It is only after incurring losses after a fire, or experiencing its effects that people become aware of their role.

In addition to this, many people lack previous experience with fires (Martin, Raish & Kent, 2008). As a result, they do not pretty well understand the effects a fire can cause. Other people also feel that even if a fire occurs, it is not going to affect them. It gives them a false sense of security, which makes them become more reluctant. People with such reluctance cannot do much to avert any danger of a fire. Others may have the perception that destructive fire only occurs in urban areas and not in the rural areas. They may also think that other such fires can only occur in forests and wild lands. Seeing that they are not close to any of these, they develop a false sense of security. It makes them do nothing about preventing fires. When a fire results, and finding people unprepared, the damage incurred escalates. The costs incurred in fighting it also increases.

Another factor for the high discrepancy is the loss caused by consequential losses. After a fire occurs, and damage is caused, other things may occur which increase the extent of the loss. Consequential loss refers to a loss which occurs due to a certain calamity. As a result of a fire, some people may lose their capacity to carry out their normal businesses (American Insurance Association). It results in a greater loss in addition to that caused directly by the fire. Given that this consequential loss is never factored when planning for losses, the costs increases. The aggregate costs incurred to manage a fire will be higher than the planned costs due to this omission.

According to Cote (2003), some fires are as a result of direct ignition through arson. Fires occurring from this source are usually very fatal. The reason for this is that they are started on very strategic places. For instance, such fires may start from the bedroom as a result of someone smoking. When they ignite the bedding or furniture, such fire spreads easily causing great loss. Occurrence of such fires may not be foreseen with certainty. For this reason, there may not be adequate measures to counter them. The result is that the damage associated with such a fire will be high, as well as the associated costs.

A large majority of people tend to place a lot of confidence in the firefighting authorities. They believe that as long as there is a fire station nearby, the loss cannot be much. For this reason, they may not take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of a fire. In reality, some fire authorities in a number of countries are usually marred with inefficiency. When a fire occurs, there being no adequate measures to reduce the loss, it turns to be enormous.

Last but not the least; insurance also contributes to this discrepancy. Once people have insured their property against fire, they transfer all the liabilities to the insurer. They believe that the insurer will compensate everything in the event of a loss. They do not engage in any mitigation activity. They may even become reluctant and careless in the way they carry out their operations. Insurance gives them a perceived sense of security. The security reduces their perception towards the risk of fire and the resulting loss.