Crowd Safety Management Introduction
Crowd disasters are known to have existed since the Roman Empire. The Coliseum in Rome, Italy, is one of seven wonders of the world, and one of the most ironic Roman buildings in existence. It had a capacity of 73,000 people and had over sixty numbered ingress and egress points. As a result of this design, exists were located side by side, and aided in an evacuation of around 5 minutes. As you can imagine, modern stadia cannot accomplish this, due to the smaller number of ingress and egress points, and much larger capacities.
Each event differs and requires a different application and configuration of various elements, management, services, and provisions. Crowd Management is not only achieved by controlling an audience, but trying to understand their behaviours and the various moving parts that may affect this, a system must be in place to control all elements, rather than address each element in silo. This can only be done by understanding the underlying issues that might exist or may arise, and this can only be done via stakeholder collaboration, within working groups, and carrying out meaningful, and in-depth Risk Assessments.
The terms Crowd Management, and Crowd Control are used interchangeably, however, the two are different. Crowd Management is defined as the systematic planning for, and supervisory of, the orderly movement and assembly of people. Crowd Control is the restriction or limitation of group behaviours, for example intervention by security and or the police. Carrying out a Risk Assessment, is part of the Crowd Management process, which includes the proactive evaluation of projected levels of occupancy, adequacy of means of ingress and egress, identifying procedures for ticket collection, venue queuing systems, historic data, sale of alcohol and expected activities and group behaviours, artist risk assessments, and so on.
The Risk Assessment should consist of several steps, and should be clearly documented throughout, and should also be assessed during the event itself. Identification of hazards to which visitors may be exposed, determine which guest groups may be harmed and how, evaluation of risks, and decide on the control/mitigation measures, record findings, and implement preventative, and or proactive measures, and finally, assess and review the adequacy and effectiveness of such measures and revise them when necessary.
Throughout the Risk Assessment process, internal and external stakeholder engagement is paramount, this may include collaboration with local emergency services, local authorities, landlords, and of course all internal functional areas, such as HSE and Security. It should be noted, that in some countries, such as the UK, terrorist attacks have occurred in crowded places, such as the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017, when a suicide attacker detonated an PBIED (Person Born Improvised Explosive Device) which killed 22 people and injuring many more.
The Risk Assessment should include such considerations, and if in the UK, guidance can be offered by CTSA’s (Counter-Terrorism Security Advisors), the NaCTSO (National Counter-Terrorism Security Office), which can also provide enhanced awareness training for event staff. An event can benefit immensely by having staff appropriately trained in counter terrorism awareness, especially security staff, who are often tasked with identification of suspicious persons and acts, such as hostile reconnaissance, and should carry out counter terrorism egress checks at venues, when the Risk Assessment identifies this as a requirement.
The RAMP Analysis is a Risk Assessment methodology acronym for the Routes, Areas, Movement and Profile of a crowd. Using the tool, will enable us to map risk areas, and enable us to formulate a pro-active crowd management plan, rather than being reactive. DIM-ICE was a model first used by its founder, Professor Dr Keith Still, and overtime has been developed, Crowd Safety Training in the UK, developed this further into DIM-ALICED, which is used to focus the user’s attention onto time related elements of crowd risk, this relates the phases of an event, and the influences of the environment on the crowd behaviour.
Elaborating on the DIM-ALICED modelling, we focus on the three primary influences on crowd behaviour; Design, Information and Management. And extending this to ALICED; Arrival, Last Mile, Ingress, Circulation, Egress, Dispersal. By using the DIM-ALICED Meta Model, we can apply colours, much the same as a risk matrix, to identify areas of low risk and high risk. Over the years, we have witnessed a growing emphasis on the use of Risk Assessment tools by stadia ground management to enable it to identify and implement mitigation measures to ensure the reasonable safety of spectators. It is the duty of management to carry out site-specific Risk Assessments, for all events without causing a burden, and encourage the formulation of practical and systematic action plans to reduce the level of risk to both spectators, and our workforce.
The process should always be carried out by competent, qualified persons, with the appropriate skills and experience, specialist advice should be sought, for example that from CTSA’s, qualified crowd safety management professionals, and local and national emergency services qualified in crowd safety management. It is important to remember that event organisers should always carry out a Risk Assessment, regardless of the size, as risks are not always less. It should also be noted that a qualified HSE person, without the required crowd safety management qualification and experience, is not appropriately suited for this important task.
The proactive use of social media is paramount, through targeted posts, aimed at members of the public, focusing on clearly worded and simple instructions, for example, park and ride, train times, arrival protocols and ticketing information. This information can help define the ingress and egress of the public, from a phycological point of view, social media has played a significant part in aiding a safe ingress and egress, especially if an event has a ‘’last mile’’. Within the Green Guide, it also notes the sophistication and growth of social media and technology gives venue management the ability to address spectators directly through social media and reach a much wider audience, especially younger crowds.
Crowds are dynamic, and the conventional approach to Risk Assessment addresses a risk in its static form, one number, one description. It is important to visualise the dynamics of risk, by identifying Location, Duration, Severity, which can be done by mapping risk. As outlined previously, mapping of risk can be done by using the RAMP Analysis tool.
The SIX Pillars of Crowd Safety Management
1. Planning
Involvement of all internal and external stakeholders via a committee, this will lead to an Event Safety Policy for a Crowd Safety Management Plan. Defining roles and responsibilities is paramount to aid in a safe event, as is clear, continuous, and collaborative communications with stakeholders throughout the planning cycle, delivery, and conclusion.
2. Assessment of Crowd and Venue
This can be a challenging and lengthy process, much like a security survey, it is vital to look at everything with a broad approach, such as historic data, previous geographical events, actual physical inspections, weather, time of year, age, demographic of the event, capacity, the list goes on. This will impact the density, the flow rates, emergency action plan, staffing levels and everything else to ensure the event is in fact safe.
3. Management of Risk
RAMP Analysis (Routes, Areas, Movement and Profile), a proactive approach to mapping risk in certain areas. Crowds are dynamic, and the conventional approach addresses a risk in its static form, one number, one description. It is important to visualise the dynamics of risk, by identifying Location, Duration, Severity, which can be done by the mapping risks using time related imagery, such as ingress, event time, circulation, and egress.
DIM ALICED – Design, Information and Management, Arrival, Last Mile, Ingress, Circulation, Egress, Dispersal. DIM-ALICED, which is used to focus the user’s attention onto time related elements of crowd risk, this relates to the phases of an event, and the influences of the environment on crowd behaviours (phycological impact).
4. Signage and Communication
Phycological prompts to aid and support guests. Clear and accurate signage to help visitors, colours are useful to guide people from a carpark to a grandstand for example for both ingress and egress. Social Media is a powerful tool, and all age groups have access to it, not all, what about visually impaired people? How effective would a loud hailer be if the language is set to English, but the crowd only speaks Arabic?
5. Stakeholder and Organisational Engagement
Transparent and clear communication throughout the team, and with internal and external stakeholders always, do not work in silo. A decision made in silo without buy-in, or without stakeholder input may impact the safety of others and put lives at risk. Just because something has been documented, if it is not known by those who need to know, then the document is not fit for purpose.
6. Evaluation and Improvement
Ongoing, throughout the event with people on the ground implementing the plan, and those at senior level who endorse it. Ensuring hot de-briefs are conducted daily, or after an event, so improvements can be made, either the next day, the following week, or the following year. Again, we highlight the need for a collaborative approach.
Crowd Disasters Over the Years
Dec. 3, 1979 — Eleven people are killed as thousands of fans rush to get into a concert by The Who at Riverfront Coliseum in Cincinnati.
Jan. 20, 1980 — A temporary four-story wooden stadium collapses at a bullfight in Sincelejo, Colombia, killing some two hundred spectators.
Oct. 20, 1982 — Sixty-six people die in a crush of fans leaving a UEFA Cup match between Spartak Moscow and Haarlem, of the Netherlands, at Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow.
May 28, 1985 — Thirty-nine people died in fan violence at the 1985 European Cup final between Liverpool and Juventus at Heysel Stadium in Brussels.
March 13, 1988 — Ninety-three people are killed when thousands of soccer fans surge into locked stadium exits to escape a sudden hailstorm in Kathmandu, Nepal.
April 15, 1989 — Ninety-seven people die, and hundreds are injured in a crush of fans at overcrowded Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. One victim died in 2021 of aspiration pneumonia, to which he had been left vulnerable because of injuries from the disaster.
July 2, 1990 — During the annual hajj in Saudi Arabia, 1,426 Muslim pilgrims, from Asia, die in and around a long pedestrian tunnel leading from Mecca to Mina.
January 13, 1991 — Forty-two people are killed when fans try to escape brawls at Oppenheimer Stadium in South Africa.
May 23, 1994 — A crush of pilgrims at the hajj leaves 270 Muslim pilgrims dead.
Nov. 23, 1994 — A panicked crush during a political protest in Nagpur, India, leaves 113 dead.
Oct. 16, 1996 — Eighty-four people die and 147 are injured as panicked fans are crushed and smothered before a World Cup qualifier between Guatemala and Costa Rica in Guatemala City.
April 9, 1998 — A crush of pilgrims on a bridge in Mecca leaves 118 hajj pilgrims dead.
April 11, 2001 — At least 43 people are crushed to death during a soccer match at Ellis Park in Johannesburg, South Africa.
May 9, 2001 — More than 120 people are killed when police fire tear gas into the rowdy crowd in a stadium in the Ghanaian capital Accra, leading to panic.
Feb. 17, 2003 — Twenty-one are crushed to death in the stairway exit to E2, a nightclub in Chicago.
Feb. 20, 2003 — Stage pyrotechnics during a Great White concert at the Station nightclub in Warwick, Rhode Island, spark a fire that kills one hundred people and injures more than two hundred others.
Feb. 1, 2004 — A panic during a hajj ritual at the Jamarat Bridge near Mecca leaves 251 people dead.
Jan. 25, 2005 — A panic among Hindu pilgrims near Mandhradevi temple in Maharashtra, India, leaves 265 people dead.
Aug. 31, 2005 — At least 640 Shiite Muslim pilgrims in Baghdad are killed when a railing on a bridge collapse during a religious procession, sending scores into the Tigris River.
Jan. 12, 2006 — A panic among Muslim pilgrims during a hajj ceremony near Mecca leaves 345 people dead.
Feb. 4, 2006 — Seventy-eight people are killed in a panicked crush that happened at PhilSports Arena stampede in Manila, Philippines, as they were waiting for a TV variety show audition.
Sept. 30, 2008 — At least 168 people are killed and one hundred are injured when thousands of Hindu pilgrims are caught in a panic at a temple in Jodhpur, India.
July 24, 2010 — Twenty-one people die and more than 650 are injured in a crush in a packed tunnel that was the sole access point to the Love Parade music festival in Duisburg, Germany.
Nov. 22, 2010 — More than 340 people are killed and hundreds of others are injured during a panicked crush at a festival in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh.
Jan. 27, 2013 — A fire kills more than two hundred people at the Kiss nightclub in Santa Maria, Brazil.
Sept. 24, 2015 — At least 2,411 Muslim pilgrims die in a crush during the hajj in Saudi Arabia.
April 30, 2021 — Forty-five people are killed and dozens more are wounded in a panicked crush at the annual Mount Meron pilgrimage in Israel.
Nov. 5, 2021 — Fans at a Houston music festival surge toward the stage during a performance by rapper Travis Scott, triggering panic that leaves ten people dead and many more injured.
Oct. 1, 2022 — Police fire tear gas after violence breaks out following an Indonesian soccer match, setting off a rush for the exit that leaves at least 125 dead and more than one hundred injured.
How SABRE Risk Can Support You
The above subject area is complex, and requires knowledge, experience, and qualifications, it is a process that takes time, to ensure the appropriate measures are put into place to ensure an event is safe for guests, workforce, and talent.
SABRE Risk have a leadership team who are qualified crowd safety management practitioners with over four decades of combined experience in mass crowd events on a global scale, with significant experience delivering security governance at high-profile events within the Middle East for over a decade. Our leadership have also worked with recording artists both on tour, and within the Middle East, having provided both in-country protective security support, and advanced venue security coordination on world tours.
Please contact the team at SABRE Risk to see how we can support you, and your next event in the Middle East or further afield, we are happy to provide case studies and talk to you about our experience in depth, and how we have supported global event promoters and organisers with high-profile concerts, festivals, and sporting events throughout the Middle East.
operations@sabre-risk.com
Comments