Economic cost of fire.

[K Lard]

Anybody got a reasonable figure for the economic cost of fire in England (Or reasonable estimate based on past figures)?

[Dinnertime Dave]

A saw a CFOA document promoting sprinklers recently that suggested it was About 8.3 billion per year in 2008. Doesn't seem to be much published info after that. National archive is a good place to start I would have thought.

[kurnal]

Not sure if there is any financial loss data here, but a good link for statistics none the less

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fire-statistics-great-britain
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fire-statistics-great-britain
I too have seen the figure of 8 billion  quoted by the sprinkler industry but have seen figures of 3 billion quoted in insurance circles.

Hansard might be worth a more detailed search, here's something I found immediately, though it's old it might help point you in the right direction.


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-06-13b.142177.h

I remember Wee B posting a link to spreadsheets on this topic during the last 12 months, run out of time now but it might be worth a search on his previous postings

[wee brian]

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121108165934/http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/researchandstatistics/firestatistics/economiccost/

But you do need to read and understand what its says.

The cost of fire model added up the cost of fire damage with the cost of having a fire and rescue service and the cost of all the fire protection etc etc. so the total figure is meaningless (unless you understand it)

The Department stopped running this as it took a long time and doesn't really tell you anything.

[kurnal]

Thanks Wee Brian that puts it all in context and explains the disparity between insurance industry and sprinkler industry figures. As an update I Found this, not sure how reliable it is though
https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/874729/ga2014-wfs29.pdf

[Dinnertime Dave]

The Department stopped running this as it took a long time and doesn't really tell you anything.

I disagree WB, it tells us a lot. Is the cost of fire increasing as the cuts to the fire service and attendance times increase? We may be getting less fires but when we have them are they bigger?

Everything I do in the fire service has to be based on evidence, will I make a difference by doing it? Looks to me that there is a big slice of evidence missing.

[K Lard]

Thanks for the quick replies. The 2008 figure of about ?8.3 Billion includes both loss and prevention. I will put a guesstimate on it as it is only for a presentation.

[wee brian]

The Department stopped running this as it took a long time and doesn't really tell you anything.

I disagree WB, it tells us a lot. Is the cost of fire increasing as the cuts to the fire service and attendance times increase? We may be getting less fires but when we have them are they bigger?

A quick scan of the fire stats answers that question. No.

[Tom Sutton]

Another link for you to peruse, it may be useful but the figure don't match the figures above. Look at the links near the bottom of page 1.

https://www.abi.org.uk/Search-results?q=Statistics+fire

[kurnal]

so the cost of fire losses in the UK are widely quoted as being between ?1.3 billion and ?8 billion and vested interests will use that which best suits their argument. I always used to quote the 8 Billion on training courses till one day whilst presenting a CPD event for RIBA I was hauled over the coals by someone from the insurance industry who knew better. Since then I took whatever the sprinkler lobby said with a big pinch of salt.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I think the conclusion I take from this is nobody really knows, or those who do know aren't telling.

I do find it difficult to believe that in an age where we measure everything, we can't find up to date statistics. 2008/2009 seems to be the best we can find. Prior to the austerity measures being introduced.

[Mike Buckley]

The question gets even more complex because the figures seem to concentrate on the direct costs of fire i.e. the cost of the fire brigades etc. but do not take into consideration the more hidden costs such as the costs of employees losing jobs and the on going effects on the community.

Besides which everybody uses the figures that will suit their argument. The government want to show that their cuts are not having any real effect, the uniuons wnat to prove they are, the sprinkler industry wants to show how good their products are and scare people.

The final answer appears to be: take a reasonable guess and then inflate it or deflate it in a psuedo scientific way to support your argument.

[Dinnertime Dave]

The question gets even more complex because the figures seem to concentrate on the direct costs of fire i.e. the cost of the fire brigades etc. but do not take into consideration the more hidden costs such as the costs of employees losing jobs and the on going effects on the community.

Besides which everybody uses the figures that will suit their argument. The government want to show that their cuts are not having any real effect, the uniuons wnat to prove they are, the sprinkler industry wants to show how good their products are and scare people.

The final answer appears to be: take a reasonable guess and then inflate it or deflate it in a psuedo scientific way to support your argument.

Mike, I think you have summed it up beautifully.

[colin todd]

I have always thought that these studies have no relevance, as it depends what you choose to include and how you cost it.  You could say that many fires are no loss to the national economy because it creates work for people to reinstate the property.  If there were no firemen there would be more people unemployed and costing money in benefits (plus who could the FBU bring out).  I can kind of see Suppers perceived value in comparing any  increase in fire loss with fire service cuts, but I wonder if you would ever see data thereby that was very reliable; the causal link would be difficult to establish. It all seems academic to me, and a lot of work to find out some figure that you cant do anything practical with anyway.