The ERC Egressibility project

In December 2024, I was notified to be among the winners of an ERC Consolidator Grant with a project called “Egressibility: a paradigm shift in evacuation research.” Thanks to Grunde Jomaas for inviting me to share information about the project to the Burning Matters readers. This article is divided in three parts, first I introduce you to Egressibility and why this concept is important for fire safety engineering. The second part describes the ERC grant process and my journey towards winning an ERC grant. The last part presents the next steps for the Egressibility project and how to get engaged. I hope you enjoy the reading, and I hope the newsletter will encourage you to get more interested in the topic of Egressibility, and if you are a researcher, to take your chance and apply for an ERC grant at any of the levels.

1. Why a project on Egressibility?

Accessibility and universal design are established domains which have brought significant advances towards achieving an accessible and inclusive built environment. They are currently seen as an important step in the design of the built environment in Europe and worldwide. In this context, evacuation research and practice are lagging [1]. On the one hand, evacuation research is a well-established field, with several applications, including performance-based design approaches. Needless to say, evacuation research and design are mostly focused on “average” or able-bodied populations [2] and the needs of people with disabilities are generally addressed through dedicated provisions only, such as areas of refuge [3], [4], the possibility to use elevators for evacuation in special circumstances [5], and alarms dedicated to people with hearing impairments [6]. In other words, building evacuation is not by default designed in an inclusive way to address everyone’s functional abilities, but it is rather “patched” with solutions adopted for given sets of vulnerable groups. This approach is a failure as demonstrated by the disproportionate number of fatalities of vulnerable groups during fire disasters requiring an evacuation [1], [7]. The Grenfell tower disaster is just one of the many cases which have highlighted this issue.

Egressibility is a concept developed in parallel with accessibility and universal design for meeting the needs of people with disabilities in case of emergency. It can be defined as accessibility to means of evacuation. The term was first proposed in 1995 by Proulx [8]. Adopting the concept of person-environment fit [9], often used in accessibility research and practice, egressibility can be understood as the interplay between the functional capacity of an individual and the environmental demands. In other words, egressibility does not depend only on the features of an evacuation design but also on building users, as illustrated in Figure 1 (by Erik Smedberg). For example, an evacuation alarm based on sound does not contribute to egressibility for a person that is deaf.

1.1. What is the Egressibility project about?

The project aims to address the critical need for inclusive emergency evacuation through Egressibility. The goal is therefore to change evacuation design into universally accessible evacuation design, particularly focusing on vulnerable groups such as older populations and people with disabilities. The project will utilize qualitative and quantitative methods, including multi-sensorial virtual reality (VR) and inclusive machine learning - following the principles of ethical Artificial Intelligence (AI) - to collect large data and information related to evacuation behaviour of heterogeneous populations. VR can be deployed in several ways - from Cave Automatic Virtual Environments to head mounted displays as shown in Figure 2 (from the Virtual Reality Lab at Lund University) [10] - and it has shown great potential to study evacuation behaviour [11]. The plan is to rethink its use so that it can be applied to a wide range of populations, including those with functional limitations.

Unsurprisingly, AI is becoming more and more popular in the fire safety field, as well. Still, in the evacuation research field, the populations that are used to train AI models are often restricted to “average people”, meaning that a significant part of the population (most vulnerable) is excluded. This is because researchers in behavioral sciences (and fire safety engineering) often base their models on datasets coming from student populations (since those are easily accessible to them). The issue of representation bias in AI models [12] can have catastrophic consequences for fire safety, since what we are excluding from our datasets are actually the populations that are the most affected in fire scenarios. “Traditional” evacuation models which rely on theory can be adapted to different populations. The use of AI-based models for evacuation, based only on homogenous “average” populations, may instead lead to biased design solutions which are harder to fix. Representation bias in AI-models is an issue to be addressed with extreme urgency, before AI becomes mainstream in fire safety engineering design. Otherwise, we will rely on tools that are designed to ignore the most vulnerable populations. This issue does not apply only to fire safety engineering, and my goal is to set a good example for many other disciplines which will rely more and more on AI models based on behavioral data from people.

2. The ERC Grant process

Every year, the European Research Council (ERC) of the European Union awards a set of research grants designed to support excellent scientists in any field of science at different career stages. This is a very competitive process (with very small success rates) in which scientists must demonstrate the ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of a research idea through a written proposal and an interview conducted with a panel of prominent scientists. The ERC research grants allow for long-term (5 years) and generous funding (2 million Euros). Thus, needless to say, the Egressibility project (see Figure 3) also comes with a great prestige due to how competitive the process is. [Editor’s note: Only 14 grants of this type were awarded to researchers in Swedish research organizations this year.]

In my experience, the process of winning an ERC takes years of work. I shaped my project idea during an earlier pilot project [13] on the topic of Egressibility that was funded by a National research council (FORMAS, the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development). In this project, I had the chance to collaborate with colleagues at the medical faculty working at the Centre for Ageing and Supportive Environment at Lund University and perform a broad review of the accessibility [14] and egress [2] fields through the lenses of the International Classification of Functional, Disabilities and Health, provided by the World Health Organization. This framework is widely used in the health sciences as it allows measuring health and disability at both individual and population levels. Surprisingly, it is not used in the world of fire safety engineering. What we too often see in fire safety is that functional limitations are described with vague terminology and in a non-systematic manner. My thought is that it is time for all of us in fire safety to learn from the health science field how to describe and classify functional limitations and subsequently address them in evacuation design. I have myself been “schooled” on understanding functional limitations by my colleagues in the medical domain. This has been an eye-opening process for my research. I also got familiar with different models of disability (medical model, social model and person-environment fit) and identified how they can be applied to Egressibility (see Figure 4).

2.1. How do you win an ERC grant?

Having a good idea is not sufficient to win an ERC grant. The ERC competition is full of fantastic ideas. So, after my pilot national project on Egressibility was over in 2022 [13], I started working on a proposal which would make a clear case on the importance and urgency of the topic. But that is not sufficient, since the ERC is only given to excellent researchers which can prove to have the right expertise to conduct the project. Therefore, I decided to wait until my last year of eligibility for the ERC Consolidator grant (12 years after my PhD defense), so that my CV was as convincing as it could be. On top of my research contributions in the fire safety and evacuation domain, I had in the meanwhile published in journals in the disability science domain [16] and also strengthened my profile in the research methods I proposed for the project (e.g., multi-sensorial VR and machine learning [17]).

The ERC grant selection is a two-step process. Scientists with the best written proposals get invited for an interview. The interview then becomes crucial in deciding what proposals get the grant. Having the highest score in the interview is necessary, but not sufficient, since you may still not be in the highest pool of funded candidates. Those top candidates without a grant can try again while those with lower scores face embargo periods during which they are not allowed to reapply. Basically, my approach was to go all-in with one single attempt with what could be my best possible CV at the time of application.

2.2. The ERC interview

In the spring of 2024, I was notified by the European Union (EU) that my Egressibility project was selected for the interview round of the evaluation process. My thought was: I have passed Step 1, now I can compete! ERC interviews have a reputation to be tough and intense (the ERC itself in their Youtube channel state that ERC interviews can be nerve-racking), with short presentations followed by back-to-back Q&A which can cover not just your own project, but the whole credibility of the research methods proposed and your research field.

ERC panels are made up of top scientists from all around the world, and include a wide range of people possibly with very different expertise. I had deliberately selected a social science panel for my proposal, since I thought those scientists may be more familiar with the accessibility research domain. Only the panel chair is known at the time of the interview, while candidates know that the other interviewers are made of panellists from previous years, previous ERC grantees or other prominent researchers in the broad area of the panel domain. I did all the “homework” recommended for this type of interviews, including preparing a list of possible questions on the proposal, studying possible panellists, and rehearsing a convincing presentation. I did this with colleagues and previous ERC grantees who generously offered their time.

ERC interviews are nowadays held remotely, with the panel sitting in Brussels and the candidate being in front of a screen. The interview went incredibly well, with several technical questions on a wide range of topics (from ethics to modelling). Most importantly, I had managed to guess all questions in the list of possible questions I had prepared beforehand except one, which was actually about the use of agent-based model vs. AI models. Fortunately, I teach the use of agent-based models for evacuation in my Human Behaviour in Fire Course at Lund University, meaning that I could go into the details into the pros and cons of agent-based vs. AI models. This is also a topic that we discussed in the webinar series arranged within the Human Behaviour in Fires (HBiF) working group of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). My overall argument during the interview was that evacuation is not a race. In fire safety engineering we do not care too much about those who evacuate first, rather the Required Safety Escape Time (RSET) is the time for the last people reaching safety. And those are the people that our models and methods often ignore. This must be changed.

2.3. A funny anecdote

My interview started later than planned and I was waiting in front of a blank black screen with an ERC logo for over 1 hour. Initially you are told by the EU that this can commonly happen due to IT issues, but my case was different. The interview panel told me that there was an evacuation alarm going off in the building in Brussels during the day of my interview. This was probably my lucky day as all of a sudden my panel had an evacuation affecting their daily life and could immediately understand the importance of my research area. I though at that time that my ERC proposal was meant to be, but I was still keeping realistic expectations since the success rate for this type of grant is very small.

3. The future of the Egressibility project

When I received the news from the EU that my Egressibility project was in the list of those that have been granted funding, it took me some time to realize it happened for real. This is fantastic news not just for my research activities, but for the whole evacuation and fire safety engineering fields, since it will contribute to inclusive evacuation design and highlight the importance of fire safety engineering at the wider EU level. My ERC project will start in 2025. I plan to build a dream team of evacuation academics to work with me on the project. Most importantly, I aim to engage with organizations linked to people with disabilities and have them involved in the whole research project throughout. If you belong to one of those two categories, please do not hesitate to reach out at [email protected].

Egressibility is not merely an academic pursuit, it is a commitment to a fair and equal society.

Enrico

References

[1] K. Boyce, “Safe evacuation for all - Fact or Fantasy? Past experiences, current understanding and future challenges,” Fire Safety Journal, vol. 91, pp. 28–40, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.05.004.

[2] O. Bukvic, G. Carlsson, G. Gefenaite, B. Slaug, S. M. Schmidt, and E. Ronchi, “A review on the role of functional limitations on evacuation performance using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health,” Fire Technology, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10694-020-01034-5.

[3] E. Carattin, R. Lovreglio, E. Ronchi, and D. Nilsson, “Affordance-based evaluation of signage design for areas of refuge,” in 14th International Conference and Exhibition on Fire Science and Engineering, Royal Holloway College, University of London, UK: Interscience Communications, 2016.

[4] N. C. McConnell and K. E. Boyce, “Refuge areas and vertical evacuation of multistorey buildings: the end users’ perspectives,” Fire and Materials, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 396–406, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1002/fam.2205.

[5] M. Kinateder, H. Omori, and E. D. Kuligowski, “The Use of Elevators for Evacuation in Fire Emergencies in International Buildings,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (US), Technical Note 1825, 2014.

[6] E. Smedberg, E. Ronchi, and V. Hutchison, “Alarm Technologies to Wake Sleeping People Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing,” Fire Technology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2485–2507, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10694-022-01265-8.

[7] M. Runefors, N. Johansson, and P. Van Hees, “How could the fire fatalities have been prevented? An analysis of 144 cases during 2011–2014 in Sweden: An analysis,” Journal of fire sciences, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 515–527, 2016.

[8] G. Proulx, “Evacuation time and movement in apartment buildings,” Fire Safety Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 229–246, Jan. 1995, doi: 10.1016/0379-7112(95)00023-M.

[9] B. Slaug, O. Schilling, S. Iwarsson, and G. Carlsson, “Typology of person-environment fit constellations: a platform addressing accessibility problems in the built environment for people with functional limitations,” BMC public health, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 834, 2015.

[10] E. Ronchi, D. Mayorga, R. Lovreglio, J. Wahlqvist, and D. Nilsson, “Mobile‐powered head‐mounted displays versus cave automatic virtual environment experiments for evacuation research,” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, vol. 30, no. 6, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1002/cav.1873.

[11] M. Kinateder et al., “Virtual Reality for Fire Evacuation Research,” in 1st Workshop “Complex Events and Information Modelling,” Warsaw, 2014, pp. 319–327.

[12] N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1145/3457607.

[13] E. Ronchi et al., Building Egressibility in an Ageing Society. Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, 2022.

[14] G. Carlsson, B. Slaug, S. M. Schmidt, L. Norin, E. Ronchi, and G. Gefenaite, “A scoping review of public building accessibility,” Disability and Health Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 101227, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101227.

[15] E. Smedberg, “Egressibility: Applying the concept of accessibility to the self-evacuation of people with functional limitations,” PhD Thesis, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2022.

[16] E. Smedberg, B. Slaug, G. Carlsson, G. Gefenaite, S. M. Schmidt, and E. Ronchi, “The Egress Enabler: Development and psychometric evaluation of an instrument to measure egressibility,” Disability and Health Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 101396, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2022.101396.

[17] A. Rohaert, J. Wahlqvist, H. Najmanova, N. Bode, and E. Ronchi, “The evaluation of data fitting approaches for speed/flow density relationships,” in Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2023, Eindhoven, 2023.