Crowd management

Security concept, crowd management, mass panic – time to clean up

Security planning for events is not a separate discipline in Germany. In addition to the obvious difficulties associated with this (lack of professional standards, standardised training, etc.), this becomes particularly clear whenever the media deal with this topic. While it can be assumed that the reporter has a basic knowledge of football, the topic of event safety planning is obviously a "topic for everyone" – because there is one thing that can always be used to describe any event: mass panic. And if you want to go a little deeper, there is bound to be a crowd manager – after all, English titles are known to indicate particularly important positions.

A considerable market has emerged to match the incorrect and/or inflationary use of the terminology: apps that prevent "mass panic" – which is particularly great because "mass panic" can be written again when the app is reported on – crowd management as an advertising-friendly service. If "security concepts" were a stock, the price would probably have gone through the roof long ago.

The whole thing could almost be funny if the effects were not so fatal: the fear of "mass panic" has led more than a few insecure representatives of licensing authorities to impose conditions that - to put it mildly - were somewhat excessive and out of touch with reality. What is even worse, they are still being cited as the reason for one of the cardinal errors of emergency management: the late warning; "We didn't want to cause panic" is the - well-intentioned (sic!) - reason given in more than a few cases for why information was provided too late and warnings issued too late. But if we assume that people will behave badly from the outset, guided by mass psychology theories from the late 19th century, then we are very likely to make the wrong decisions when it comes to the safety of those very people.

This is where the concept of crowd management comes in: for visitors to our event, who - quite understandably - have needs in relation to the event. These needs range from perhaps not having to wait too long at the entrance, to having a good view of the stage, to being informed whether it is actually still worthwhile to queue for the last ride. But these needs also include the desire to get to safety in case of danger. "Escape" is a desire that is not irrational, that is not contagious and that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what is described as "mass panic" with sad regularity. Escape becomes a problem when escape is not possible – for example, because the planning was poor from the outset (no adequate exits), because the planning was incomplete (no suitable signage for the exits), because organisational errors occurred (locked exits) or also because malicious actions thwarted the actually good planning [1].

As early as 1993, John Fruin established that many disasters at events could have been avoided with more careful planning [2]:

Most major crowd disasters can be prevented by simple crowd management strategies.

In English-speaking countries, the term"crowd management" is a fixed term and planning approach for the careful and systematic planning for people in crowds. As early as 1980, the Task Force on Crowd Control and Safety wrote in its report on the accident at a concert by the band The Who, in which 11 people died in 1979 [3]:

it became increasingly clear that the primary factor in assuring a safe and comfortable environment for large crowds is the planning for their management. There is considerable emphasis in this report on crowd management planning and implementation because (...) it is the key to providing safe events

Fruin defined crowd management in 1993[4] as follows

the systematic planning for, and supervision of, the orderly movement and assembly of people

Crowd management is thus defined as the systematic planning for and the control of an orderly movement and assembly of people and describes a preventive planning approach that puts the visitor and his sense of security and well-being at the centre of the planning.

FRUIN: FIST

Based on the question of what factors led to the occurrence of accidents, it is possible to explain what factors influence the safety of visitors at events. Fruin summarised these factors as:

• Force - (the prevention of) pressure / crowding
• Information - (the provision of) information and communication
• Space - the visitor's room to move, including infrastructure
• Time - the temporal dimensions of the use of space
  
  

On this basis, requirements can be derived in relation to the planning. As early as 1980, the Cincinnati Report pointed out the necessity for a comprehensive consideration of all influencing factors:

Crowd management must take into account all the elements of an event especially the type of event (...), characteristics of the facility, size and demeanor of the crowd, methods of entrance, communications, crowd control, and queueing. As in all management, it must include planning, organising, staffing, directing and evaluating. Particularly critical to crowd management is defining the roles of parties involved in an event, the quality of the advance intelligence, and the effectiveness of the planning process.

STILL: DIM-ICE Meta Matrix

In the so-called DIM-ICE meta-matrix, Keith Still shows a simple planning approach based on the fact that the relevant factors influencing the visitor must be considered for each phase of an event. This is necessary because the visitor has different needs in the various phases of the event. The information needed during the journey to the venue is different from that needed when leaving the event, the areas available for admission must be dimensioned differently from the areas in front of the stage, etc.

Still defines three central factors that form the basis for the planning:

• D - Design (space planning, infrastructure, etc.)
• I - Information & Communication
• M - Management (staff deployment, resources, etc.)
  
  

These factors must be considered for the different phases of an event

• arrival/admittance phase(ingress),
• circulation phase and
• egress (leaving) phase
  
  

.

The arrival and admission phase is characterised by questions regarding access routes to the event site, the arrangement of parking areas or public transport hubs, the space required by the waiting crowd, the capacities of the entrance areas, the necessary information for those waiting and arriving, and the organisation of those waiting.

The attendance phase is determined by the movements of visitors on the event site. People move for many reasons, e.g. to get the best view, to be close to the desired attraction or to find friends. To do this, they need information about locations, processes, programmes or prices. The movements must be guided, either by the terrain design itself (pathways), by information (e.g. signs) or active guidance measures (e.g. staggered programme starts).

For the exit phase of events, especially those that end at a certain time or have a programmatic highlight after which a large number of people leave the grounds (e.g. after fireworks), special measures must be taken to appropriately guide the movements of the audience, as the exits often have to cope with a high number of people in a short period of time. In addition, visitors are often tired, exhausted and/or drunk during this phase, the surroundings appear different due to altered visibility, and the need for information and guidance is significantly higher than at the beginning of an event.

The following matrix shows the overall result (K. Still, 2014)

The matrix impresses with its simplicity: suitable design elements (e.g. doors and gates) for the admission phase can no longer be used for the exit phase and must be adapted or may no longer be used at all. The information needs during an admission situation in normal operation are different from those in an emergency situation in the same admission situation. Managing queues requires different skills than working at a stage barrier. All factors are systematically related to each other and can easily be checked for completeness.

The matrix can be used for planning but also for checking existing measures. It helps to structure the often complex information, for example, as part of a security concept, and can thus help to identify weak points or even missing information.

Conclusion

The planning and execution of events is based on a multitude of factors that need to be taken into account. These include building regulations and fire safety requirements as well as issues of land use, visitor guidance and organisation. If accidents occur at events, it is usually because one or more of the necessary factors or the needs of visitors have been neglected. So instead of worrying unnecessarily about "mass panic", it makes more sense to invest resources in good crowd management.

References

[1] [link href="http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news3/article112360108/Massenpanik-in-Abidjan-womoeglich-durch-Kriminelle-ausgeloestd.html"] http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news3/article112360108/Massenpanik-in-Abidjan-womoeglich-durch-Kriminelle-ausgeloestd.html[/link] [accessed 25 April 2015]

[2] Fruin, John J (2002): The causes and prevention of crowd disasters. Originally presented at the First International Conference on Engineering for Crowd Safety, London.

[3] Wertheimer, P (1980): Crowd Management- Report of the Task Force on Crowd Control and Safety. City of Cincinnati.

[4] Fruin, ibid.

[5] Still, K (2014): Introduction to Crowd Science. London. Tylor & Francis Group. pp. 118ff.

We would like to thank IBIT GmbH for providing this article.