Unveiling the barriers hindering occupants’ adoption and utilisation of concealed emergency exits in facilities

In every community, evacuation during disasters is essential for the safety of its residents (Liu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Ensuring proper evacuation of buildings during a fire, natural disaster or other threat is critical to everyone’s safety (Simpeh and Adisa, 2021). These protocols typically include emergency alarm systems, evacuation routes, emergency exit doors, emergency exit signs and additional safety measures. (Fu et al., 2024a). Effective indoor routing is essential for emergency evacuation to minimise casualties (Soltaninejad et al., 2021). A well-functioning evacuation sign system will shorten evacuation times and not cause any traffic or incorrect route selections. Occupants choose to use regular routes during an evacuation rather than emergency routes. Because adherence to the supplied information might impact occupants’ safety (Kubota et al., 2021). Emergency exit signs essentially direct evacuees to the few accessible escape routes (Zhang et al., 2024). Every building has emergency exits to help with evacuations. Empirical research has shown that some people do not always take the proper actions during emergencies (Lancel et al., 2023). Unfamiliarity with exits, long escape lengths and poor route selection are all considered escape factors. Evacuation planning is mandatory for all facility types (Xu et al., 2022). Evacuation planning techniques aim to provide plans and routes for moving people to a safe place during any disaster (Islam et al., 2020).

The focus is drawn to human behaviour in evacuation results from global fire deaths (Soltaninejad et al., 2021). A facility manager’s insufficient compliance with fire prevention and safety regulations can increase the risk of fire-related losses (Vu and Lin, 2024). However, architectural features, particularly building design, can complexly influence human behaviour, impacting indoor visibility and facilitating easier wayfinding while raising the risks of potential attackers (Di and Gong, 2024; Iftikhar et al., 2020). To ensure that people can safely evacuate buildings in the case of an emergency, a multi-exit evacuation path design based on the real-time creation of emergency exits is essential (Xu et al., 2022). Choosing the best or nearest evacuation route for residents becomes more challenging because of the intricate structures of buildings and the unpredictability of the processes (Song et al., 2022).

Emergencies from natural disasters to acts of terrorism are complex and escalating threats to societal stability, critical infrastructure and organisational continuity. In Europe alone, 784 terrorist incidents recorded between 2001 and 2020 resulted in 660 lives and 4,583 injuries (Balboa et al., 2024). Terrorism in Africa has caused significant destruction to physical lives, properties and economic distortions, with countries like Nigeria and Somalia experiencing more terrorism-related deaths. Terrorist attacks within buildings pose a significant threat to occupants and users, requiring cognitive attention to ensure the safety and availability of evacuation routes, exits and refuge spaces (Li et al., 2024; Jiang et al., 2024; Lancel et al., 2023). In addition, these incidents can undermine humanitarian efforts and cause deaths due to trapped individuals (Kuligowski et al., 2023). Scholars are optimising evacuation strategies to reduce the time spent in dangerous indoor spaces, focusing on building layout, behaviour management and strategy formulation (Zhang et al., 2024). It is important to note that during terrorist attacks, gas explosions and other disasters, primary emergency exits can be blocked by attackers. This highlights the need for an alternative protective strategy. In emergencies such as earthquakes or terrorist attacks, swift evacuation is often necessary (Wachtel et al., 2021). Some people have escaped terrorist attacks by using the back doors provided as emergency doors (Cao et al., 2022). Two primary factors contribute to the possibility of casualties in public or individual accidents: the inherent harm resulting from the incident and design flaws in the facility. Consequently, examining people’s movements during evacuations is crucial to enhancing safety in unforeseen circumstances (Ye et al., 2024).

Previous studies, like Mehmood et al. (2023b), have stressed the need for invisible door sensors to solve facility emergencies. Nguyen et al. (2022) provided an intelligent evacuation guidance system that dynamically determines evacuation routes. With the use of smart indicators, the system is built as a distributed system with several levels of computing. Pişirir et al. (2024) research on the optimisation of evacuation scenarios in structures with human anthropometric traits. Gao et al. (2020) studied a more straightforward way to offer evacuation instructions in an emergency in a multi-exit building. Adjei et al. (2025) conducted a study on the factors that motivate users to adopt concealed emergency exits in facilities. Concealed exits were used in the colonial era as a means of escape and protective strategies (Patterson, 2024). The concept of a hidden emergency exit (HEE) presents a novel perspective on the benefits and limitations of its current form being adopted and used. This study investigates the barriers preventing occupants from adopting and using concealed emergency exits in facilities.

Technologies such as flashlighting for directing exit signs (Mossberg et al., 2021), fire doors (Hassanain et al., 2018), building information modelling and virtual reality simulations have been used to enhance the design and planning of emergency exits (Ding et al., 2024; Lorusso et al., 2022). Internet of Things systems use sensors to monitor environmental conditions and adjust evacuation routes dynamically (Mehmood et al., 2023a; Jiang et al., 2022). Beacons and mobile devices convert distance data into voice instructions to guide evacuees (Jin, 2024; Bombasi et al., 2023). Mobile applications can also communicate information for safe evacuations (Yankah et al., 2023). In addition, artificial intelligence in emergency planning uses deep learning to predict optimal routes, allocate resources and estimate disaster locations (Wu et al., 2024). Geographic Information System (GIS) technology analyses spatial features and supports decision-making during evacuations (Jin, 2024). For high-rise buildings, suspended rescue platforms and escape chutes are provided as alternative escape routes (Mansor et al., 2019). Installing a water sprinkler system to clear fire and smoke ensures safe evacuation (Zainuddin et al., 2018).

An emergency exit is a passage used during an event that threatens the populace’s protection, health and welfare and poses an instantaneous threat to an individual’s health, security, possessions or atmosphere while causing panic and chaos (Zhou et al., 2024). Adjei et al. (2025) define HEE as “a special undisclosed exit only known to the users within a facility, designed and constructed for an easy breakthrough to a place of safety in emergencies”. The effectiveness of a facility’s evacuation depends heavily on how exit doors are designed and closest to end-users (Fu et al., 2024a). The emergency broadcast is one of these crucial elements that can draw people’s attention and offer essential data for wise evacuation decisions (Xia et al., 2021). Depending on the use and design of the building, the evacuation procedure may vary (Vu and Lin, 2024). A fire alarm, emergency exits and clear exit signage are essential amenities for residents to aid in indoor evacuations (Fu et al., 2024b). An immediate and coordinated response from government agencies and emergency responders is essential to ensure the safety and security of all individuals involved (Balboa et al., 2024).

The barriers hindering the adoption of HEEs are discussed in this section. New technology, HEEs, face performance concerns due to a lack of standardisation, limited availability and unknown exit choices, affecting user perceptions (Adhikari et al., 2020). Limited access to HEE designs creates an additional challenge, as it reduces the options available to users. However, the ability to produce various HEE designs is usually restricted (Adhikari et al., 2020). It addresses the lack of IT, diversity and direct materials and skills. However, to address this issue, businesses have been teaching staff members technical skills to create HEE technology (Almatari et al., 2024).

Market failures often stem from a need for more knowledge about HEEs, their advantages, financial incentives and infrastructure availability (Adhikari et al., 2020). The main barriers to widespread adoption are general information about HEEs, product quality and low experience. While HEEs reduce risk, Chen et al. (2023) asserted that customers may need to be aware of the benefits and potential risks. Clients’ perception of HEE standards can influence their intentions to use them, but this perception gap is limited to performance, reliability, capacity and technical issues.

Higher production costs of HEE create economic barriers, particularly in the construction sector. Consumers perceive these costs as deterrents, and smaller groups hesitate to adopt these systems. Financial limitations and traditional mindsets also hinder their adoption (Chen et al., 2023). Wealthier individuals are better equipped for emergencies, while low-income communities face higher risks due to financial limitations and inadequate infrastructure (Thompson et al., 2024).

HEE is a new technology that requires a comprehensive policy framework to support its adoption. Government policies should include awareness campaigns, tax exemptions and long-term planning (Adhikari et al., 2020). However, adoption could be more consistent across agencies due to concerns about accountability and public service obligations. Agencies must justify their decisions to taxpayers and understand the demands for HEEs. Legal uncertainties and political challenges like adverse fiscal policies and high tax rates can deter technology adoption, especially in developing economies with limited investment (Almatari et al., 2024).

Older individuals face physical, mental and financial challenges that hinder their emergency preparedness, making them more vulnerable during emergencies. Their diverse disabilities can also affect their ability to respond effectively (Thompson et al., 2024). Older women are generally less prepared for emergencies than men, likely due to limited financial resources and poorer self-reported health. They may also evacuate more slowly during disasters (Thompson et al., 2024).

Living conditions, such as living alone, can reduce the likelihood of having essential emergency supplies and an evacuation plan, particularly for older adults with physical and cognitive limitations (Thompson et al., 2024). Lower formal education levels correlate with lower emergency preparedness. Individuals with better education tend to have better physical and cognitive health and a better understanding of emergency messages (Thompson et al., 2024; Vu and Lin, 2024). Research indicates that marginalised racial and ethnic groups face a higher risk of weather-related emergencies due to their frequent living in disaster-prone areas. However, Hispanic individuals, particularly older Hispanics, reported lower emergency preparedness levels. Poverty also affects Hispanics, making it harder to obtain emergency supplies. In addition, older Latino immigrants’ mental health concerns are often misdiagnosed and inadequately treated, further reducing their preparedness. Latinos are also the most vulnerable to poor mental health after emergencies (Thompson et al., 2024).

As economies develop, buildings become larger and more complex, requiring careful consideration of safety, aesthetics, economic efficiency and evacuation effectiveness in their design (Wang et al., 2024; Soltaninejad et al., 2021). Exit doors are crucial for emergency evacuations, and understanding how people choose exits can help create safer evacuation routes (Ma et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024a). Building safety encompasses architectural and evacuation safety, with regulations governing architectural safety and the ability of evacuees to leave without harm under evacuation safety (Wang et al., 2024). The evacuation procedure may vary based on the building’s use and design (Vu and Lin, 2024). Factors such as occupants’ evacuation behaviour, environment and building features influence the evacuation speed (Wang et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024b).

The technology research worldwide has shown promising results, but the development of HEEs is presently in its beginning stages (Chen et al., 2023). Significant advancements have been made in intelligent emergency sensors and security measures (Zhang et al., 2024; Di and Gong, 2024; Saini et al., 2024). However, there is a lack of research in the construction sector regarding technology like HEE (Almatari et al., 2024). In developing economies, there is minimal to no development of new technologies, with businesses typically adopting existing ones. One of the major obstacles to adopting new technology is the lack of investment in technology. Technological capabilities vary among firms with different levels of technology, but companies can invest in new technologies over time to improve their technological level (Almatari et al., 2024). A summary of the barriers is presented in Table 1.

Snyder (2019) defines research methodology as the science of studying how research is to be undertaken. This study used a quantitative method. According to Kreshpaj et al. (2020), the quantitative approach, rooted in positivism, collects factual data, studies relationships and aligns facts with theories and research findings, focusing on phenomena expressed in terms of measurements. A literature search identified 25 barriers that relate to new technology, emergency management, digitalisation and the industrial revolution, and are conceptualised for HEEs in Table 1. Ebekozien et al. (2025) also emphasised the importance of thematic synthesis in exploring recurring themes. This approach highlights the constituents in the patterns, concepts and common findings across several reviews, ultimately providing a clearer understanding of the barriers for the HEEs.

The study used the Ejisu-Juaben Municipality of the Ashanti Region. The study area chosen has different categories of residents and various types of residential buildings, such as apartments for single and multi-family homes, to aid the generalisation of the study. For this study, the population chosen consisted of the housing stock of Ejisu-Juaben Municipality, which is 31,094, according to the Ghana Statistical Service (2021). Convenience and purposive sampling were used to gather data from the building owners and users. These sampling techniques aid in considering those who have experience in emergency exits and are easily accessible (Ebekozien et al., 2025; Pandey and Pandey, 2021). Applying the sample size determination table computed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the study used a sample size of 379, with a 68% response rate of 256.

This study used a questionnaire as a data collection instrument, consisting of two sections, namely, respondents’ demographic data and information on the benefits and barriers of HEEs. The study used descriptive statistics, frequency tables, percentages and SPSS version 23 software for data analysis, using statistical approaches such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and mean score ranking, normalisation value (NV) analysis (Acheampong et al., 2024). The NV standardises the variables’ values between zero and one, setting the highest mean value item to one and the smallest to zero. The calculation for the NV is NV = (Mean value – Min means value)/(Max mean value – Min means value). Using NV ≥ 0.60 was used to evaluate the critical variables for the benefits and barriers of adopting HEEs in facilities.

This section presents the study’s background information, which includes gender, educational level, type and the number of years stayed in the residence.

Table 3 displays the results regarding the benefits of having HHEs in facilities. The results in Table 3 show the estimation of the mean score, standard deviation and normalisation approach to rank the benefits of HEEs in residential buildings.

This section analyses barriers preventing the adoption of HEEs in facilities, using mean scores, normalisation, EFA techniques and Cronbach’s alpha (CA) for reliability. The CA of the 25 barriers to adopting HEE in residential buildings was 0.920, above the minimum recommended threshold of 0.60 (DeVellis and Thorpe, 2021). The study found that all 25 barriers had Kolmogorov–Smirnov values of p-values < 0.05, contradicting the normal distribution assumption and requiring flexible analytical tools based on the normality assumption. The results in Table 4 ranked the most critical barriers to adopting HEE based on the NVs of the threshold of 0.60 and above.

From the PCA results, the KMO value was 0.878 > 0.70, which shows that the data was sufficient for EFA. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was supported (p-value < 0.05). According to Shrestha (2021), Bartlett’s test provides a chi-square test with a related degree of freedom (df) and p-value to assess the factorability of the correlation matrix. The average variance extracted from the results was 0.673. It ranged from a maximum of 0.811 to a minimum of 0.563, which was above 0.50 (50%), indicating that more than half of the variance in each indicator was extracted in Table 5. The ideal number of components obtained from the data set using EFA is shown in Figure 1. It is plotted against the corresponding component numbers.

The results in Table 5 show that seven components were selected as the primary clusters: demographic, economic, technology, facility design, social, technical, government policy and support.

The respondents’ background information in Table 2 indicated that many study participants were female, representing 63.3% and 36.7% were male. The respondents were of tertiary education level, representing 71.1%. The residence type was mostly flat apartments, representing 83.6%. The remaining 16.4% of the respondents stayed in storey buildings. Most respondents had lived in the residence for 5–7 years, totalling 46.9%. In addition, 27.3% had resided there for 2–4 years, while 19.1% had lived there for less than a year. This background information indicates that the perspectives of well-educated individuals influenced the study.

The CA of the six benefits of having HEE was 0.924, above the minimum recommended threshold of 0.70 (DeVellis and Thorpe, 2021). This suggested that the instrument for the benefits of HEE in residence had internal consistency reliability. From the results, the first two ranked benefits recorded a NV greater than 0.60. These indicators were: HEE protects users in the event of a tragedy. It also allows the occupants to maintain safety. This supports the fact that evacuation procedures are crucial for occupant safety in emergencies (Fu et al., 2024a). Every building has evacuation routes and emergency exits to address emergencies (Lancel et al., 2023). The HEEs are beneficial in residence, as supported by Adjei et al. (2025).

From the results, the first 12 ranked barriers were critical. There are fewer HEE adoptions due to a limited number of design types, location of exit doors, evacuation procedures in a facility, education level, types of the buildings, lack of knowledge of HEE, lack of investment in technology, lack of technology research, risk of using HEE, lack of government policy, knowledge of the technology and higher production cost. The first component was associated with demographic factors: research shows that lower formal education levels lead to lower emergency preparedness, while better preparedness is linked to occupants’ better physical and cognitive health (Thompson et al., 2024). Individuals lacking experience or knowledge often lack confidence in HEEs (Vu and Lin, 2024). It can be deduced that the level of education can greatly influence the adoption of HEE.

The second component was associated with economic factors: traditional exit doors have the economic advantage of a lower purchase price than any new technology like HEE, despite its potential advantages (Adhikari et al., 2020). Higher purchase prices of HEEs can cause barriers to the current market uncertainties (Adhikari et al., 2020).

The third component was associated with technology barriers: These barriers included a lack of technology research, investment, complexity, knowledge and credibility. New technologies, including HEEs, are underdeveloped and require time for their adoption, as Chen et al. (2023) supported. In developing economies, the cost and lack of capital are major barriers to technology adoption. Due to insufficient research, HEEs lack technology knowledge, leading to unresolved usage issues (Almatari et al., 2024).

The fourth component was associated with the design of the facility barriers: the facility design and type determine the various exit types, sizes and locations (Wang et al., 2024). However, the above statement supports the idea that HEE adoption will depend on the type of buildings and exit ways. Exit doors are essential for egress systems, but their location is impractical due to the building layout diversity. Understanding evacuation choices is crucial for designing and arranging exit doors (Ma et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024a). The exit location affects the adoption of the HEE. Building features influence occupants’ evacuation behaviour as a critical factor that designers can improve (Fu et al., 2024b).

The fifth component was associated with social barriers: barriers to technology adoption include a lack of awareness about industrial rules, technology understanding, uniqueness and introduction to this technology. It is essential to prepare for the use of technology and address any issues that may arise. (Almatari et al., 2024). Adopting new technology, particularly HEE, can be accelerated through educational programs, advertisements and media communications, emphasising the importance of awareness-raising campaigns (Adhikari et al., 2020). HEE offers risk reduction advantages, but clients must know the potential benefits before patronising them (Adhikari et al., 2020).

The sixth component was associated with technical barriers: research has indicated that a lack of availability for certain HEE designs limits the options available to users because the HEE manufacturing sector is responsible for designing, developing and producing various HEE designs (Adhikari et al., 2020). Therefore, there are fewer HEE adoptions due to a limited number of design types.

The seventh component was associated with government policy and support barriers: lack of government agency support and enforcement, and amendment of national building codes. Promoting the adoption and sustainability of HEEs requires a comprehensive policy framework among stakeholders, including government policies, awareness raising, tax exemptions and long-term goal-based planning, especially those designed as used by developed countries (Harrison and Johnson (2019); Adhikari et al., 2020). There are various international and national policies regarding the design of visible emergency exits, but HEE is a newly emerging area of study that requires careful consideration.

This study closes gaps in the literature by highlighting the unique opportunities and difficulties associated with HEEs. This study expands the knowledge about protective strategies for users evacuation during disasters. The barriers suggest reassessing existing policies, requiring stricter regulations and implementing awareness programs. Cross-sector collaboration among construction professionals, safety engineers and emergency management officials is also needed to standardise HEE design. Engaging users in discussions about their concerns can foster a safety culture and communal responsibility. Institutions and industry players are encouraged to invest in research and development to streamline and enhance the dependability of HEEs. The social implications include highlighting facility designers’ need to increase awareness of the advantages and usage of disguised emergency exits and discover knowledge and understanding gaps about HEEs. This could lessen panic and uncertainty during emergencies. Understanding the influence of demographic variables on emergency readiness can result in more inclusive safety plans.

HEEs offer significant advantages in enhancing facility safety and security during terrorist attacks, theft and smoke explosions. Occupants’ security is enhanced because these exits are concealed, making them less vulnerable to compromise in disasters. HEEs contribute to a more efficient occupancy distribution by offering more evacuation choices. The study also discussed a wide range of elements from the design, social, technical, economic and demographic domains to the policy, technical and technology domains that impact the implementation and use of HEEs in facilities. This study comprehensively explains how different factors influence the efficacy of the emergency escape system. The new perspectives have greatly benefitted the safety engineering, facility design and emergency management knowledge base. The research also suggests further research into demographics, interdisciplinary approaches and longitudinal studies.

This study has three main limitations. First, it focuses on a set of variables that impact HEEs and might not encompass other aspects of emergency preparedness. Consequently, the respondents’ characteristics and geographical area influenced the study’s outcome. Data on certain aspects, such as the real-world performance of HEEs, may not be readily available or dependable. This might affect how thoroughly the HEEs’ efficacy and benefits are analysed. Diverse local laws, cultural norms and economic circumstances may affect the study’s outcome.