Fire Loss Reduction: Fire Detectors vs. Fire Stations

This paper develops a method for comparing the cost effectiveness of two ways of improving the fire protection in a community: the installation of detection-alarm systems (DAS) in dwellings and the addition of fire companies. The method is developed from a number of relatively simple models and assumptions. One is a relationship that predicts average travel time from the number of "covered" fire stations and the size of the area being served. A second is a set of regressions of the percentage of the property value destroyed vs. response time for five classes of fires in one- and two-family homes. And a third is the effect of installing detection-alarm systems on the distribution of fires among the five classes at the time of detection. Adding fire companies increases the number of covered stations, thus reducing response time, and thence expected loss. Installing detectors increases the proportion of fires in the less serious classes, thus reducing expected loss. The method was applied to data from Calgary, Canada. The results for this case show that, from a base case with no DAS and 16 fire stations, adding detectors would be more cost effective than adding fire stations to reduce fire losses if a DAS for a one- or two-family home costs less than $2500 to install and $1700 a year to maintain (or the equivalent cost mix using present values). The methodology can be extended to other types of occupancies (e.g., high-rise buildings and commercial properties), and to other types of losses (e.g., indirect and life). It could then become a useful tool in helping to choose fire protection levels for a community, as well as determining how to allocate a given amount of resources among different means of fire protection.