Chapter 5. Case Study on Risk: Fires in Informal Settlements
Dr Andrés Valencia and Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe
Learning Objectives
In this chapter, you will:
- Understand the social, economic, and historical factors that contribute to the formation of informal settlements in the global context.
- Apply a disaster management framework to analyse fire risks, from household practices to settlement-wide infrastructure.
- Perform fundamental engineering calculations to determine the water resources required for an effective fire response.
- Explore ethical considerations for humanitarian engineers addressing fires in informal settlements.
Introduction
Informal settlements are home to over 1 billion people worldwide [1], and according to UN-Habitat, this number is expected to triple. These communities often lack essential infrastructure such as safe housing, reliable water supply, and emergency services, making them highly vulnerable to climate-related hazards, especially fire. Overcrowded living conditions, flammable building materials, and rising temperatures further compound this risk. Fire outbreaks in these settings are a recurring humanitarian crisis: rapid, deadly, and devastating for already marginalised communities. Due to the informality of those dwellings, as Tavares et al. (2024) emphasise in their global review, “the burden of managing these hazards typically falls on individuals and households, with few coordinated or transformative multi-stakeholder interventions” [1].
Therefore, humanitarian engineering plays a vital role in addressing these challenges. It goes beyond technical fixes to engage with the lived realities of affected populations, applying engineering principles in ways that are participatory, adaptive, and context-sensitive. In the face of fire risks, humanitarian engineers must not only calculate water requirements and design suppression systems but also navigate complex social dynamics, limited resources, and institutional voids. This chapter explores how engineering can support fire resilience in informal settlements by aligning technical expertise with community-led knowledge, co-design practices, and inclusive recovery processes. Grounded in real-world examples, it advocates a transformative approach in which engineers act not just as problem solvers but as facilitators of justice and resilience in the most exposed urban margins.
Fires in Informal Settlements: A Global Challenge
Fire in informal settlements is a global phenomenon, posing a significant and often devastating risk to over one billion people who live in them [1, 2]. These fires are large and frequent disasters that take lives, cause serious injuries, destroy properties, and have long-term impacts on livelihoods. Recovery from these events is a challenging process, characterised by financial instability, insecure land tenure, and lack of insurance, which are common in such communities [3].
Despite the scale of the problem, it remains largely neglected within the professional engineering community, where attention is more commonly given to the formal built environment. This neglect is one reason why humanitarian engineering has emerged as a critical field, bridging technical expertise with the moral imperative to serve vulnerable populations. This chapter addresses this gap by presenting a comparative analysis of informal settlement fires in three contexts: Colombia, South Africa, and Costa Rica. Each case reveals a different facet of the challenge:
- South Africa faces a crisis of immense scale, rooted in the legacy of apartheid, where institutionalised segregation forced non-white populations into underserved areas lacking proper urban planning. Between 2003 and 2018, the country recorded over 64,000 fire cases in informal settlements [4]. In some years, these fires have resulted in hundreds of deaths, with single events displacing thousands of people from their homes.
- Colombia illustrates a chronic problem, largely driven by an armed conflict that caused the forced displacement of millions of people from rural areas to the peripheries of major cities. From 2011 to 2020, fires in informal settlements accounted for approximately 17% of all fires in the country, affecting over 22,500 people during that period [5].
- Costa Rica, while having a smaller portion of its urban population living in informal settlements (around 4%), still experiences significant fire events. Here, the issue is primarily driven by socio-economic factors, such as historical housing deficits and rural-to-urban migration, which have pushed populations into precarious living conditions [6].
The purpose of this chapter is to use these comparative cases to explore the role of engineers across the full disaster management cycle while developing a holistic understanding of how engineering practice can support the resilience of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.
Context: Drivers and Vulnerability
In humanitarian engineering, risk is never just technical; it is social, cultural, and political. Vulnerability to fire is shaped by systemic marginalisation, including exclusion from formal planning systems, the criminalisation of informality, and the breakdown of trust between the state and the community. Recognising these dynamics is foundational to any people-centred engineering intervention.
To effectively intervene, an engineer must first understand the fundamental nature of an informal settlement. These settlements are characterised by precarious living conditions, including a lack of access to vital services such as potable water and energy, poor-quality dwellings, and overcrowding [3]. These communities often operate partially or entirely outside formal regulatory systems, in hazardous areas such as steep hillsides or floodplains. This phenomenon of marginal urbanisation occurs worldwide, with informal settlements present in Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. However, the problem is most acute in regions with high income inequality, elevated unemployment rates, and weak institutions [7]. Globally, around 23% of the world’s population lived in informal settlements in 2022, with some of the highest concentrations in Sub-Saharan Africa (54%) and the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan (32%), and Latin America and the Caribbean [8].
The dwellings themselves pose a risk. They are often improvised structures built from readily available recycled materials, such as cardboard, metal sheets, plastics, and tarps [5]. There is no regulation to guarantee the safety of these dwellings, which are frequently built with highly flammable and combustible materials, leaving them without the basic fire safety standards that have proven essential in reducing risk elsewhere.
This vulnerability means that even an initially small fire can quickly ruin lives and destroy property. Up to 95% of the world’s fire-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, where providing safe, affordable housing is a major challenge [9]. While the specific reasons for their existence are deeply rooted in national and historical contexts, the outcome is universal: intense exposure to risk for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
A Framework for Engineering Action: The Disaster Management Cycle
To approach a problem as complex as informal settlement fires, engineers require a structured, holistic framework. The disaster management cycle, described in [3], provides a powerful tool for organising engineering interventions. This cycle consists of four key stages: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.
- Mitigation: Measures to prevent or reduce the likelihood and consequences of fire.
- Preparedness: Strategies, resources, and training to prepare for a fire event.
- Response: Actions taken during a fire to save lives and protect property.
- Recovery: Actions taken after a fire to assist survivors and rebuild, ideally with improved safety.
This chapter is structured around these four stages. For engineers, this framework helps move beyond purely technical solutions by integrating actions across scales (from the household to the city) and over time. In addition, humanitarian engineers apply this cycle holistically, ensuring that engineering decisions are made with affected communities, not for them. It is essential to keep in mind that the effectiveness of action at each stage depends on applying community engagement principles, such as the A-B-C model introduced earlier in this textbook (see Chapter 1), and on developing technical expertise collaboratively with the communities at risk, rather than simply designing and implementing for them.
To expand understanding of fires in informal settlements and to highlight the complex challenges faced by humanitarian engineers, the following link to a documentary presents real-world accounts and expert insights, offering a critical lens on the social, technical, and environmental dimensions of fire risk in these vulnerable communities.
Mitigation
In humanitarian engineering, mitigation includes co-designing fire-resilient infrastructure using participatory approaches, often with limited resources. For example, training community members in low-cost retrofitting techniques (e.g., firebreaks made from non-combustible materials or sand-bucket stations) not only reduces fire spread but also builds local capacity.
Mitigation measures are a cost-effective way to reduce fire risk, as they aim to prevent disasters before they occur. For engineers, this involves analysing and addressing vulnerabilities in both the built environment and the human factors (causes and catalysts) that contribute to fire ignition.
The Built Environment
Construction Materials and Fuel Loads: The materials used to construct informal dwellings, often flammable, are a key source of fire risk. In the Andean region of Colombia, for example, dwellings are commonly built with native bamboo (Guadua angustifolia) and covered with highly flammable plastic sheeting [5]. In Costa Rica, a clear difference exists between settlement zones: some dwellings near main streets are sometimes built with more robust materials like masonry and concrete, which can act as a fire barrier, while houses farther inside the settlement are almost exclusively made of temporary materials like metal, gypsum, or wood sheets. The use of such materials creates a high fuel load, contributing to the rapid development of the fire [6].
Settlement Layout and Density: The dense, unplanned nature of informal settlements is a factor that can lead to fire spread between dwellings. Minimal separation distances between dwellings (1 or 2 meters in some cases) allow fire to spread rapidly from one structure to the next, turning a single-house fire into a large conflagration involving a whole community in minutes. Access is another major challenge; for example, the alleys in many Costa Rican settlements are labyrinthine, uneven, and extremely narrow, often measuring between 0.7 and 1.5 meters wide. These conditions severely hinder both resident evacuations and access for firefighting vehicles and personnel.
Causes and Catalysts
Ignition sources in informal settlements are closely linked to the challenges of daily life. Analysis from Colombia, Costa Rica, and South Africa reveals several common causes:
- Unsafe electrical connections: Faulty, illegal, or overloaded electrical connections, often referred to as “spaghetti wires”, are a leading cause of fires, particularly via short circuits.
- Open flames: The use of open flames for cooking, heating, and lighting is a major ignition source, particularly where access to electricity is limited or unaffordable. This includes candles, kerosene lamps, and firewood stoves.
Unsafe practices and arson: Other causes include the unsafe storage of flammable materials like gasoline, children playing with fire, and arson, which is often tied to social conflicts. An example of hazardous practices was observed in Bajo Zamora, Costa Rica, where a resident was found cooking with a makeshift stove in a metal drum placed directly beside the flammable wall of a dwelling. The accumulation of waste in alleys also acts as a combustible bridge, allowing fire to spread between dwellings.
When designing mitigation strategies for informal settlements, it is essential to ensure that proposed solutions are both practical and feasible. These communities often arise out of necessity, without formal planning, and cannot simply be redesigned to meet ideal standards. For example, recommendations such as increasing the space between dwellings may not be realistic in many informal settlements, whether existing or future. Instead, adequate mitigation measures should account for the constraints and realities faced by residents, aiming for approaches that can be realistically implemented within the unique context of informal settlements.
Exercise 1: The Risk Observation Log
Objective:
Identify specific fire hazards related to the built environment and human factors from a case study, and then propose preliminary mitigation strategies that are centred on community collaboration.
Scenario:
You are a humanitarian engineer conducting a walk-through of the informal settlements in San José, Costa Rica, described in the study from Guevera et al. [6]. You are tasked to act as a risk analyst, identifying potential hazards based on the textual and photographic evidence provided in the research.
Task:
Based on the descriptions of Tejarcillos and Bajo Zamora in [6], identify and log one distinct hazard related to the “Built Environment” and two related to “Causes & Catalysts.” For each hazard, propose one potential mitigation strategy that would require community collaboration to implement.
Example Solution:
| Hazard Category | Observed Hazard | Description | Potential Collaborative Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built Environment | Makeshift Tire Stairs | In Bajo Zamora, steep stairs are made from old tyres filled with soil. These tyres would release toxic smoke and could block escape routes during a fire. | Work with the community to co-design and build more stable, non-combustible steps using locally sourced materials, and conduct a workshop on safer building practices. |
| Causes & Catalysts | Waste Accumulation | In larger settlements like La Carpio, garbage bags accumulate in alleys, creating a continuous fuel load that can spread fire between dwellings. | Facilitate a community-led waste management program. This could involve negotiating with the municipality for more frequent collections and co-designing safe waste collection points away from dwellings. |
| Causes & Catalysts | Unsafe Cooking Methods | In Tejarcillos and Bajo Zamora, residents use open flame bins and makeshift stoves for cooking, often near flammable dwelling walls. | Introduce a low-cost, household-level suppression strategy by providing sand buckets. This is effective for smothering small paraffin or cooking oil fires where water is dangerous. Co-develop a community education program on how and when to use them. |
Now your turn:
Identify and log one fire hazard related to the “Built Environment” and two fire hazards related to “Causes & Catalysts” (Think about cooking practices, stored materials, electricity use, etc.). For each hazard, suggest one preliminary mitigation strategy that a) requires community collaboration, b) can be justified as culturally sensitive, and c) involves technical input but is not top-down.
| Hazard Category | Observed Hazard | Description | Potential Collaborative Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built Environment | |||
| Causes & Catalysts | |||
| Causes & Catalysts |
Ethical considerations:
a) How would you engage residents with lived experience in assessing acceptable levels of risk?
b) If community members rely on risky methods (e.g., kerosene stoves) out of necessity, how can you propose alternatives without blaming or shaming?
c) What might be the unintended consequences of changing materials or practices? Could new risks be introduced?
Preparedness and Response
Preparedness is not only about infrastructure, but it is also about human relationships. Humanitarian engineering teaches us to build local alliances, train volunteer responders, and support grassroots coordination efforts (See Chapter 1). These social systems often outperform top-down interventions when trust is high and communication is culturally appropriate. While mitigation aims to prevent fires, preparedness and response strategies are key for managing incidents when they do occur. This stage requires a combination of community-led action and sound technical analysis from engineers.
The effectiveness of fire Preparedness often depends on the level of social cohesion and organisation within a settlement, as illustrated below for informal settlements in Costa Rica [6]:
- Success in Bajo Zamora: The smaller settlement of Bajo Zamora provides a clear example of proactive community preparedness. Residents formed their own emergency brigades, requested training from the national fire corps and other public institutions, and developed plans to install exit signs in alleys, demonstrating a high level of risk awareness and a collective commitment to safety. This success was strengthened by effective institutional engagement; the national power company built a strong relationship with the community by listening to their needs and assisting with small infrastructure projects, such as building a wheelchair ramp, that went beyond their electrical mandate.
- Challenges in Larger Settlements: In contrast, larger and more fragmented settlements like La Carpio in Costa Rica face significant organisational challenges. The presence of multiple, non-cooperative community organisations can hinder the implementation of unified safety plans and create complexity for external partners.
The 2019 fire in the “Puerto Rico” settlement in Armenia, Colombia, highlights some of the main challenges associated with Response or suppression, and control of the fire. Ignited by a gas cylinder failure, the fire rapidly destroyed 25 dwellings and affected 128 people [5]. Firefighting efforts were severely hampered by obstructed access and a lack of readily available water, forcing emergency services to fight the fire from the periphery.
Engineers can provide critical support by calculating the resources needed for an effective response, for example, the amount of water required. Humanitarian engineers are trained to work within real-world constraints: what if there’s no reliable water pressure? No trucks? Their solutions include mobile bladder tanks, decentralised water catchment, and gravity-fed bucket brigades—low-tech solutions tailored for extreme environments. This allows communities and authorities to plan for adequate water supplies, whether through hydrants, tankers, or static reservoirs. There are several available methods to estimate water requirements. As an example, here, we describe the method proposed in the New Standard NZS 4509:2008 [10], composed of two key formulas based on fire engineering principles:
1. Water for Fire Suppression (Mwater): The flow rate needed to extinguish the burning dwellings, which is directly related to the fire’s power or Heat Release Rate (Q):
Mwater=0.58×Q
where Mwater is in Litres per second (L/s), and Q is in Megawatts (MW).
2. Water for Exposure Protection (Mexp): The flow rate needed to cool surrounding, non-burning dwellings to prevent them from igniting due to radiant heat:
Mexp=Aexp×∅
Where Aexp is the total exposed surface area of the surrounding dwellings (in m2), and ∅ is an empirically derived constant of 0.1 L/s per m2.
Total Water Required (Mtot): is the sum of these two values, Mtot = Mwater + Mexp.
Example calculation of water demand for fire suppression in a single-storey dwelling within a networked gravity-fed system.
This example illustrates a single-storey dwelling within a networked gravity-fed system. A 20 MW fire requires around 12 L/s of water for suppression, with no additional exposure protection needed. The local hydrant supplies 25 L/s, adjusted for reliability factors (C₁ and C₂). Since demand (12 L/s) is less than supply, the system is deemed adequate. This method supports rapid assessment of firefighting capacity in resource-constrained or informal settlements. Credit: Andres Valencia
Example of Water Demand Shortfall Analysis on Clustered Dwellings with Multiple Exposure Risks
This example illustrates fire suppression and exposure protection requirements for four burning single-storey dwellings, each emitting 15 MW and creating multiple radiant heat exposures. The combined water demand is around 55 L/s, but the available supply from a water tanker with a non-emergency backup pump delivers only 17 L/s after applying reliability correction factors (C₁ = 2, C₂ = 1.5). The calculated shortfall of 38 L/s highlights the critical limitations of tanker-based supply systems in high-density informal settlements, where simultaneous fires and exposure risks demand significantly higher flow rates. Credit: Andres Valencia
Exercise 2: Technical Analysis and Firefighting
Objective:
Apply principles of fire hazard identification related to the built environment and human factors from a case study, and to propose preliminary mitigation strategies that are centred on community collaboration.
Scenario:
An uncontrolled fire has erupted in a densely packed informal settlement. A block of eight interconnected dwellings is fully engulfed in flames. Each burning dwelling has a peak heat release rate (Q) of 8 MW. Surrounding the fire are eleven dwellings that are directly exposed to the intense radiant heat. Each exposed dwelling presents a front-facing surface area measuring 3.5 meters wide by 2 meters high. The local fire service needs to know the total water flow rate required to manage this emergency.
Task:
Determine the total water flow rate (Mtot) in L/s needed to both extinguish the burning dwellings and protect the exposed dwellings.
Proposed solution:
Step 1: Calculate the Water Required for Fire Suppression (Mwater): First, determine the total heat release rate from all burning dwellings.
Q = 8 dwellings × 8 MW/dwelling = 64 MW
Next, apply the formula for suppression water flow.
- M_water = 0.58 × 64 MW = 37.12 L/s
- We can round this to 37 L/s.
Step 2: Calculate the Water Required for Exposure Protection (Mexp): First, determine the total exposed area of the surrounding dwellings.
- Area per dwelling = 3.5 m (width) × 2 m (height) = 7 m2
- Total Aexp = 11 dwellings × 7 m2/dwelling = 77 m2
Next, apply the formula for exposure protection flow.
- Mexp = 77 m2 × 0.1 L/s/m2 = 7.7 L/s
- We can round this to 8 L/s.
Step 3: Calculate the Total Water Required (Mtot): Finally, sum the water needed for suppression and exposure protection.
- Mtot = Mwater + Mexp = 37 L/s + 8 L/s = 45 L/s.
Conclusion: The fire service would require a total water flow rate of approximately 45 L/s to effectively combat this fire and prevent its further spread. This calculation provides a critical data
Now your turn:
Scenario: You are a humanitarian engineer deployed to Kibera, Nairobi’s most significant informal settlement and the largest in extension in Africa, following a large, uncontrolled fire. A cluster of 10 interconnected dwellings (mainly timber and corrugated metal), each with a peak heat release rate (Q) of 7 MW, is burning intensely. Adjacent to these are 14 dwellings exposed to direct radiant heat. Each at-risk home has a front-facing wall 3 meters wide by 2.5 meters high. The Nairobi City County fire service asks for an urgent estimate of the total water flow rate needed for both extinguishing the fire and protecting the exposed structures.
Task:
Determine the total water flow rate (Mtot) in L/s needed to both fire suppression and protect the exposed dwellings.
Ethical considerations:
a) What barriers might residents face in accessing water or safe escape routes?
b) How would you involve community groups in regular fire drills or education programs?
c) What local materials or strategies could supplement limited formal firefighting capacity?
d) How can humanitarian engineers ensure their interventions are equitable and culturally appropriate for Kibera’s residents?
Recovery: The Critical Test of Partnership
The recovery phase is where humanitarian engineering truly distinguishes itself. Engineers are not just rebuilding structures—they are helping restore agency, dignity, and trust. This requires humility, facilitation skills, and cultural awareness, particularly when working with Indigenous communities or groups historically excluded from formal decision-making processes.
The recovery phase, which involves rebuilding homes and lives after a fire, is often the most complex stage of the disaster cycle from a socio-political perspective. It is a sensitive process where the immediate needs of survivors, such as health and food, must be balanced with long-term objectives to “build back better”. This stage is the critical test of an engineer’s ability to partner with a community. A failure to engage genuinely can turn a technically sound solution into a source of further conflict and trauma, as occurred in the Imizamo Yethu settlement in South Africa [3].
Case study: Recovery of Imizamo Yethu Settlement
On March 11, 2017, a devastating fire swept through the Imizamo Yethu informal settlement in Cape Town. The fire destroyed 2,194 structures, displaced 9,700 people, and claimed four lives. In response, the City of Cape Town announced an ambitious reconstruction plan known as “super-blocking”. The engineering goal was to improve the settlement’s resilience by reconfiguring the layout to include roads, pedestrian corridors, firebreaks, and fire hydrants, measures designed to reduce future fire risk significantly.
The plan was robust from a technical standpoint. However, its implementation failed due to a breakdown in community partnership. Despite the City’s intention to work with the community, many residents reported that the public consultation process was inadequate. Fearing permanent relocation and frustrated by delays and a lack of communication, residents began rebuilding their homes independently, which obstructed the reconstruction effort. The situation escalated when the city obtained a court interdict to halt the independent rebuilding, leading to violent protests [11].
The Imizamo Yethu case is a powerful lesson for humanitarian engineers. A top-down approach that prioritises a technical solution without genuinely asking, observing, and collaborating with the affected community is destined for failure. Even if the engineering is well-intentioned and flawless, a lack of community ownership will create mistrust and resistance, ultimately hindering the goal of creating a safer and more resilient settlement.
Exercise 3: Role of engineers in the recovery process
Objective:
Analyse why certain outcomes occurred (e.g., why the recovery phase is often more complex than the response) rather than just memorising the details of the case.
- Help students to analyse the relationship between technical proposals and social outcomes and evaluate the engineering decisions against the ethical principles of humanitarian practice.
Questions for discussion: The role of engineers in recovery process.
- Why is the Recovery phase often more complex from a socio-political perspective than the initial Response?
- How could the engineers and city planners in Cape Town have applied the A-B-C model (Ask, Observe, Try) to achieve a better outcome in the Imizamo Yethu reconstruction? Consider: A) Ask what specific questions should engineers have asked the Imizamo Yethu residents before designing the super-blocking plan? B) Observe – What human behaviour patterns, cultural practices, or spatial relationships might have revealed why rebuilding quickly was important for residents? C) Try – How could small-scale pilots or temporary co-designed shelters have built trust and allowed for shared learning?
- What are the ethical duties of an engineer when a technically superior safety solution (like “super-blocking”) conflicts with a community’s immediate desire to rebuild and maintain their existing social networks?
Ethical Considerations: You are an engineer facing a dilemma: implement a technically superior fire-prevention solution (super-blocking) that delays return and social rebuilding, or allow residents to reoccupy land quickly, reinforcing the same hazards. What is the humanitarian engineer’s ethical duty in this context? Write a 200-word response demonstrating how core humanitarian values align with his proposed technical solution, see values below:
- Do No Harm.
- Respect Local Knowledge and Autonomy
- Equity over Efficiency
- Accountability to Affected Populations
- Participation and Inclusion.
Key Takeaways
As humanitarian engineers, we carry a dual responsibility: maintaining strong technical standards in risk analysis while working alongside communities with compassion and respect. Our role with vulnerable communities, inhabitants of informal settlements, invites us to embrace this combined role throughout all phases of the Disaster Management Cycle: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. Following the A-B-C model from Chapter 1 (Ask, Observe, Try) could help us develop solutions that are not only technically effective but also just and ethically appropriate for working with communities. Practising humanitarian engineering involves weaving ethics, fairness, and empathy into every step of disaster planning and response:
- Mitigation: Addressing the root causes of risk through collaborative mitigation before a disaster strikes.
- Preparedness & Response: ensuring communities have the plans and resources needed to save lives and livelihoods during a fire.
- Recovery: partnering with affected populations to reconstruct in ways that are more resilient and that respect their social fabric.
Informal settlement fires bring a unique layer of complexity, where risk perception may differ due to everyday survival pressures, limited alternatives to risky practices, and longstanding marginalisation. In these contexts, co-designing with communities requires us to genuinely listen, remain flexible, and ensure people have a voice in shaping the changes that affect them. In bringing together rigorous engineering and deep human connection, we can help communities transform risk into resilience. Remember that:
- Humanitarian engineering is not just technical; it is ethical, relational, and context-sensitive.
- Effective solutions emerge through sustained partnerships built on trust, humility, and mutual learning.
- Every solution must ask: Is this safe? Is this fair? Is this sustainable? But also must centre justice, dignity, and the lived expertise of those most affected.
References
[1] Tavares, C. P., Pereira, R. S. D., Bonnin, C., Duarte, D., Mills, G., Morakinyo, T. E., & Holloway, P. (2024). A global (South) collective burden: A systematic review of the current state of climate-related hazards in informal settlements. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 114, 104940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104940
[2] United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). (2022). World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the Future of Cities. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat.
[3] Arup. (2018). A Framework for Fire Safety in Informal Settlements. Arup.
[4] R. Walls, A. Cicione, R. Pharoah, P. Zweig, S. Mark, and D. Antonellis, Fire safety engineering guideline for informal settlements: towards practical solutions for a complex problem in South Africa, First edition. Matieland, South Africa: FireSUN, 2020
[5] Florez Trujillo, D. F., Valencia, A., & Avendano-Uribe, B. (2023). Informal Settlement Fires in Colombia. Fire Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-023-01413-8
[6] Guevara Arce, S., Davidson, A., Jeanneret, C., Gales, J., & Beshir, M. (2025). A provisional fire risk characterization of informal settlements of different scales in San Jose, Costa Rica. Fire Safety Journal, 156, 104439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2025.104439
[7] Pineda López, J. W. (2012). Urbanización marginal e impacto ambiental en la ciudad de Montería. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
[8] UN-Hábitat, “Population living in slums (% of urban population)”, The World Bank. Accessed: July 8, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.SLUM.UR.ZS?end=2022&most_recent_value_desc=false&start=2000&view=chart
[9] Rush, D., Bankoff, G., Cooper-Knock, S. J., Gibson, L., Hirst, L., Jordan, S., Spinardi, G., Twigg, J., & Walls, R. S. (2020). Fire risk reduction on the margins of an urbanizing world. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-06-2020-0191
[10] Standards New Zealand. (2008). NZS 4509:2008 Firefighting water supplies code of practice. Wellington, New Zealand.
[11] TimesLive. South Africa: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-09-20-from-fire-into-legal-frying-pan-for-imizamo-yethu-residents/. Accessed: July 8, 2025. [Online].
About the authors
name: Dr Andrés Valencia
institution: University of Canterbury
Dr. Andrés Valencia is a Senior Lecturer in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He holds a PhD in Physics from Normandie Université in France, and a Master’s degree in Mécanique, Énergie, Procédés, Produits (MEPP) at the Université de Lorraine. He earned his Diplôme d’Ingénieur from both the École Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Metz and the Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira in Colombia, with a focus on mechanical engineering. Dr. Valencia’s research expertise lies in combustion and fire safety, with a strong emphasis on both experimental and numerical methodologies. His work spans a range of fire science topics, including wildfire behaviour, fire suppression strategies, fire dynamics, advanced combustion processes, and the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tools. His current research is particularly focused on understanding and modelling the complex behaviour of wildfires, especially their interactions with vegetation, atmospheric conditions, and the built environment in the wildland–urban interface (WUI). Dr. Valencia aims to develop novel engineering principles that contribute to reducing wildfire risks and enhancing community resilience.
name: Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe
institution: University of Canterbury
website: https://oer.pressbooks.pub/humanitarian-engineering/front-matter/about-the-editor/
Feedback/Errata