Proactive building fire risk management: a conceptual framework

Fires have detrimental effects on society, human lives and the economy (McNamee et al., 2019). Despite many advances in fire safety engineering, fire incidents have not declined (Brushlinsky et al., 2021). Among various types of fires, building fires have resulted in approximately 0.4 million deaths per year from 1993 to 2021 (Brushlinsky et al., 2023). These alarming statistics and factors emphasise the urgent need to address building fires.

Traditional building fire risk management is predominantly reactive or response-based. It primarily focuses on enhancing post-fire management capacity, assuming that building fires will inevitably occur. It is done through actions taken during and after building fires, including the involvement of fire services and external support. Such as actions for firefighting, response, rescue, rehabilitation and recovery. In contrast, proactive building fire risk management (PBFRM) emphasises identifying and addressing building fire risks proactively. It includes pre-fire actions to proactively manage the risks of building fires. The primary emphasis lies in building fire prevention by avoiding fire ignition and risk reduction by addressing vulnerabilities. It also considers enhancing the capacity to manage the residual risk by adapting quickly and effectively if a fire does occur. Compared to the traditional approach, PBFRM emphasises enhancing in-house capacity and reducing reliance on external support. Therefore, the adoption of PBFRM has become imperative.

Numerous studies have been conducted on building fires, covering various aspects, such as risk assessment (Wang et al., 2021a), prevention (Cheng et al., 2017), mitigation (Neto and Ferreira, 2020) and emergency response (Ma and Wu, 2020). Some studies have used literature reviews for the identification of fire safety actions from different perspectives (Shokouhi et al., 2019; Salleh et al., 2020). Proactive fire management has been considered in some studies (Barua et al., 2024). Many of the studied proactive forest or wildfire risk management (Steen-Hansen et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2022; Metlen et al., 2021). Despite the abundance of research on building fires and relevant safety actions, studies on PBFRM are insufficient (Barua et al., 2024). There is a lack of a conceptual understanding of PBFRM. The absence of supportive research may result in a failure to implement it.

To address this research gap, our study aims to develop a conceptual framework for PBFRM through a systematic review of relevant literature. The specific objectives of this research are to identify building fire safety recommendations for PBFRM and to understand the purpose and application of these recommendations to achieve PBFRM for enhancing building fire safety.

A systematic approach was adopted in this research. The methodology unfolded in two distinct stages. Firstly, the articles were selected systematically following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Shamseer et al., 2015; Page et al., 2021). The purpose was to ensure thoroughness, completeness and transparency in the process of selecting articles for review in this research. The selection procedure started in September 2022, encompassing identification, screening and inclusion. Figure 1 illustrates a flow chart diagram of the article selection process.

For the identification of the articles, a set of criteria was established based on an extensive initial search and review of the relevant literature. Two databases, Web of Science and Scopus, were considered for the article identification. They are large and credible sources of peer-reviewed literature for built environment, which are relevant to our research topic. Keywords with Boolean logic for the search are (risk OR manage* OR prevent* OR safe* OR detect* OR mitigat* OR control* OR adapt* OR prepare* OR response* OR evacuat* OR recover*) AND (fire*) AND (building* OR structur*). The choice of these search keywords was driven by the focus of this research on building fire safety recommendations for PBFRM. The search was limited to a time frame of 10 years, spanning from 2012 to the partial year of 2022 at the time of the search. To ensure the inclusion of high-quality data, articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings were included. This ensured the inclusion of only high-quality and relevant research.

Following the search, a total of n = 1,091 articles were identified and imported into EndNote in the appropriate format. Further processes were conducted using EndNote 20. After arranging them, duplicate articles (n = 417) were identified and removed from the list. Thereby, a total of n = 674 articles were screened through skimming the title, abstract and keywords. The screening considered specific exclusion criteria to evaluate the articles, as shown in Figure 1. Any articles that were not related to building fires were excluded as they did not align with the focus of this research. Such as those discussing wildland fires, bushfires, energy or coal fires or firearms. Articles with inadequate information, such as those lacking details on peer-review status or full text unavailable, were removed.

Following the initial screening, the full texts of the remaining articles (n = 394) were obtained from the UNSW online library portal. During this stage, two additional relevant articles were identified through snowballing. Therefore, the full texts of these articles were screened again for eligibility applying the exclusion criteria as shown in Figure 1. Articles that did not focus on PBFRM actions were excluded to ensure alignment with the research objectives. Such as articles focusing on actions related to the fire services for their capacity building, and firefighting and rescue operations. In the end, a total of n = 109 research articles were included for review in this research.

In the second stage, the selected articles were reviewed, taking into account the study objectives. To present the general statistics and an overview of the reviewed articles, relevant data was extracted and analysed. Simultaneously, the building fire safety actions considered in the selected articles were narratively reviewed from the PBFRM perspective to achieve the objectives of this study.

The reviewed articles (n = 109) were published between 2012 and 2022. Out of them, more than half (n = 58) were published from 2019 to 2022. The number of articles gradually increased in 2016, then declined after 2020. Most of the reviewed papers (n = 65) were published in journals, whereas the remainder were published in conference proceedings. They are mostly related to science, engineering and technology (e.g. Applied Sciences, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering); fire, safety and disaster management (e.g. Fire and Materials, Fire Safety Journal); and building and built environment (e.g. Building and Environment, Buildings, Journal of Building Engineering). The articles reviewed in this research encompass studies from 24 countries, with most of the studies from Asian and European countries. Among all the reviewed articles, around 68.8% were conducted in Asian countries, with the highest contributions from China (42.2%). In contrast, Oceania, Africa and South America had the lowest number of publications.

Figure 2 illustrates the research aims, problems focused on and implications of the studies reviewed in this research. In analysing the aim of the reviewed research, it was determined that more than 60% of the studies focused on the assessment of different aspects of building fire safety. Again, from the building fire safety perspective, n = 78 studies concentrated on the overall safety or risk associated with building fires. For research problems, about half of the reviewed studies concentrated on the challenges and unique requirements pertaining to fire safety in special types of buildings due to their distinctive characteristics. Such as existing or old, tall or high-rise, high occupancy, large-scale and complex, mixed-use, modern, smart or intelligent and cultural or historical significance. For implications of the reviewed articles, a significant portion (n = 72) focused on facilitating stakeholders in the building fire safety sector to enhance safety by identifying and addressing existing gaps.

Different methodologies were used in the reviewed studies. More than 70% of the studies employed a single methodology, whereas the remaining studies employed a combination of two or more methodologies. Twenty-seven studies incorporated primary data collection and analysis methods. For example, key informant interviews and questionnaire surveys. Seventy-eight studies used literature reviews and analysis of previous fire data. Thirty-nine studies involved the review of national and international legislative documents and guidelines related to building fire safety. International legislation and guidelines included the International Building Code, International Fire Code and Society of Fire Protection Engineers guidelines.

This section discusses the building fire safety recommendations identified in the reviewed articles (n = 109). It also discusses how these recommendations can contribute to achieving PBFRM. To facilitate this analysis, the identified building fire safety recommendations are categorised based on their relevance to PBFRM purposes. The purposes encompass: inherent safety and prevention; detection and warning; control; emergency response; risk assessment and management; and addressing vulnerabilities and enhancing capacity (Bosher, 2013; Bosher and Chmutina, 2017; Barua et al., 2024; Bosher et al., 2021).

The primary focus of the PBFRM approach is to avoid building fires through the prevention of fire ignition. Fire ignition results from the chemical reaction between heat, oxygen and fuel, collectively known as the “fire triangle” (Alabi et al., 2017). Basic fire science establishes that if this chemical reaction can be prevented through the complete removal of the ignition sources, the risk of fire can be reduced to zero (Kincaid, 2022). So, the most effective strategy is to minimise the likelihood of fire occurrence as much as possible (Kodur et al., 2020). This can be achieved by understanding the causes of fire ignition and taking appropriate actions to prevent them.

Ignition source safety is the most effective solution (Li, 2019), such as safety of electrical distribution systems and equipment and heat-producing devices and appliances (Aram et al., 2021). Identification and separation of high-risk fire and smoke zones is crucial. Areas in a building that contain ignition sources and storage areas for flammable, combustible, explosive and hazardous materials should be identified. These areas should be separated as high-risk fire and smoke zones (Hamida and Hassanain, 2019). Within these zones, ignition sources and storage areas should be kept apart from each other (Kincaid, 2022).

Building fires may still occur despite inherent safety and prevention actions (Nimlyat et al., 2017). Detection systems are responsible for monitoring and detecting the ignition and growth of fire (Marantika et al., 2020). These systems use smoke, gas, visual or a combination of sensors to detect fire. They are connected to fire alarm systems to initiate early warnings. They can warn occupants through several methods. These include automatic and manual sounders, voice alarms, public address systems and active visual supports. They can be programmed to notify the management team and fire services as well. In addition, they can activate compartmentation and automated suppression systems (Babatunde et al., 2020). Thereby, they can trigger appropriate and timely responses to contain fire and evacuate safely (Rathnayake et al., 2021).

If not extinguished immediately, fires progress to the growth stage and gradually spread (Babatunde et al., 2020). However, fires at the ignition or growth stages are typically smaller in size and intensity. Quick adaptation can help to extinguish and mitigate or contain the fire and exposure at early stages. They can effectively minimise the size, limit growth, control spread and confine it to a localised area using the building’s internal capacity.

Fire suppression and extinguishing systems can completely extinguish or mitigate the size and intensity of fires according to specific fire types (Nimlyat et al., 2017). Such as water-based extinguishers should be used for fires involving ordinary combustible materials such as paper, wood and textile fibre. Whereas, carbon dioxide-based extinguishers should be used for fires involving flammable liquids such as petrol, oil and gasoline (Babatunde et al., 2020). Their proper distribution should be ensured, especially in high-risk zones and evacuation routes. They should provide clear visibility and easy accessibility (Zhang et al., 2019).

The availability of fuel and oxygen influences the spread and intensity of a fire in a building, significantly changing fire dynamics. Consequently, actions are required to limit them. Controlled fuel/fire load and storage (combustible and flammable materials) within buildings are required to control their availability (Kodur et al., 2020). Fixed fire loads (e.g. building construction materials) should be carefully calculated and controlled during the building design and construction phases (Li, 2019). Whereas, storage of temporary fire loads (e.g. raw materials, fuel and furniture) should be closely monitored and restricted (Kincaid, 2022). Air and smoke control systems in buildings are required to exhaust air (oxygen) and remove toxic smoke generated during a fire. Such as natural ventilation systems with the opening of windows and automatic or mechanical ventilation systems with an exhaust fan (Brzezińska and Bryant, 2020).

Additional actions are necessary to control the spread of fire and confine it to a localised area, thereby safeguarding the rest of the building. Structural strength and fire resistance of building components are crucial to maintaining their ability to confine or localise fire while still performing the intended structural functions (Kodur et al., 2020). Fire separation and compartmentation are vital for separating building units, evacuation routes and high-risk areas, as well as dividing the building into protected compartments (Tan et al., 2015). Such as fire barriers using fire-resistant walls/floors (Kim et al., 2021).

Safety of opening and penetration in fire separation, compartmentation and evacuation routes is also essential to prevent fire spread (Rzaij and Al-Obaidi, 2022). It can be ensured through fire protection systems. Such as fireproof enclosures, fire-stopping systems (penetration seals), fire and smoke doors and dampers in ducts (Babatunde et al., 2020). Safe distance between adjacent buildings should be maintained to minimise the influence of surroundings and reduce the risk of fire spread between buildings (Östman et al., 2017).

After detection and warning, ensuring effective emergency response is imperative while controlling building fires. These enable safe self-evacuation of occupants and facilitate fire services and external support for firefighting and rescuing trapped occupants when the situation goes beyond in-house management capacity (Su et al., 2022).

Means of egress components encompass all the elements of the evacuation route within a building (Babatunde et al., 2020). Control recommendations (Section 3.3.3) must be ensured within these components to prevent fire and smoke from spreading along the evacuation route (Tan et al., 2015). Keeping the means of egress free from any impediments is important to facilitate evacuation during emergencies (Qianli and Guo, 2012). Emergency lighting and power sources must be in place to provide adequate illumination for the means of egress during emergency response and evacuation (Wang et al., 2021b).

Postage, marking and signage are essential to inform occupants about the evacuation route and response plan, as well as to guide them during the evacuation process (Marantika et al., 2020). These signs should be well-distributed, easily identifiable and easily understandable by occupants (Babatunde et al., 2020). Resources and facilities to facilitate emergency response should be available within buildings to support the firefighting and rescue activities by the fire service and other external support (Kodur et al., 2020). Such as designated refuge areas, meeting places, rescue spaces, fire elevators and lobbies (Brzezińska et al., 2019).

Risk assessment involves evaluating the nature, extent and likelihood of risk that can have severe consequences. This critical activity enables the thorough evaluation of building fire safety and facilitates the identification of weak features (Bakhtiyari et al., 2022). Here, the factors considered are the likelihood of fire ignition, existing conditions of exposure and vulnerability and the effectiveness of the existing capacities (UNDRR, 2016). It can be qualitative or quantitative (UNDRR, 2016). Qualitative risk assessment produces non-numerical estimates with descriptive or categorical representations of risk based on the subjective perceptions of experts (Simmons et al., 2017). Whereas, a quantitative risk assessment quantifies risk and expresses the result quantitatively or numerically. For example, based on probabilistic risk analysis, deterministic or scenario analysis and historical analysis (Simmons et al., 2017). However, the choice of method should be based on the purpose, specific context and available time and resources (Bakhtiyari et al., 2022).

In addition, actions are required to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the overall building fire safety. Operation, maintenance and housekeeping activities are essential in ensuring the availability, reliability and proper condition of all fire safety systems (Zhang et al., 2019). Monitoring, checking and testing are also necessary to prevent malfunctions and maintain the integrity of fire safety systems, as well as for protection against arson (Kincaid, 2022; Wang et al., 2021b). Investigation of past-incidents provides valuable insights for learning from near misses, any scale of actual fire incidents and false alarms (Baker et al., 2013). Thereby, it contributes to a better understanding of shortcomings and areas for improvement, incorporating the lessons learned (Baker et al., 2013; Black et al., 2020).

Management is needed to ensure the ongoing safety of a building and to develop the ability within a building for immediate response and evacuation in the event of a fire (Naziris et al., 2016). Building fire management system includes a well-defined management committee with designated teams, their roles and responsibilities, working and planning strategy, as well as a control room or similar facility to facilitate effective management (Wang et al., 2021b). The system must be comprehensive, well-described, proactive and not merely a formality (Naziris et al., 2016). Building fire management plans are necessary to support the operation of the building fire management system (Egodage et al., 2020). Communication system for building fire management is also necessary to enable effective communication among security and safety management personnel, building occupants and fire services (Baker et al., 2013). This is crucial for warning dissemination, guiding emergency response and evacuation and facilitating coordination with external supports for firefighting and rescue activities (Baker et al., 2013).

The risks, defects or shortcomings in the fire safety system within a building identified through the aforementioned recommendations should be appropriately addressed (Wang et al., 2021b). Systematic and periodic updates and rectifications are important for this purpose (Kincaid, 2022). These should be carried out systematically and periodically (Bakhtiyari et al., 2022). However, it is important to recognise that not all identified risks, defects or shortcomings in the fire safety system can be completely eliminated (Kincaid, 2022). Action plans should be developed to address them. For this purpose, alternative options should be developed, evaluated and compared based on factors such as time, cost and feasibility to select the most suitable option (Bakhtiyari et al., 2022). Documentation is necessary to maintain records, ensure quality assurance and learn from past actions. Such as documentation of building information (design, layout and floor plans), fire safety actions and history of all risk assessment and management activities (Wang et al., 2015). Together, these recommendations ensure the continuation, correction and improvement of the building fire safety (Baker et al., 2013).

These should be integrated throughout the PBFRM to reduce the associated risks and thereby facilitate the strengthening of building fire safety. Special buildings present unique challenges concerning fire safety (Li et al., 2018). Such as existing/old, large-scale, complex, tall/high-rise and modern buildings. Existing or old buildings pose challenges as building components and safety systems deteriorate over time (Bakhtiyari et al., 2022). Large-scale and complex buildings have intricate floor plans and layouts, making the evacuation process more difficult (Van Weyenberge et al., 2019). Tall or high-rise buildings encounter challenges due to long vertical travel distances. Firefighting and evacuation in tall or high-rise buildings are more challenging (Kumar et al., 2022). Modern buildings pose challenges due to the unknown fire performance of new materials, modern techniques and technologies (Li et al., 2018; Wu and Chen, 2022). Mixed-use buildings with variations in functionality in the same building make it difficult to develop comprehensive fire safety that caters to each specific use (Egodage et al., 2020). Buildings constructed using flammable materials such as timber (Östman et al., 2017). The unique characteristics of these special buildings necessitate tailored considerations for fire safety (Egodage et al., 2020).

Special attention should be given to vulnerable people (such as children, pregnant women and people with compromised health), the elderly (who may have age-related health issues) and differently-abled people (with mobility, hearing, visual and speech impairments). These groups are less likely to respond swiftly when facing real evacuation challenges during a building fire incident (Kumar et al., 2022).

Human errors and behaviour have the potential to cause fires and hinder immediate response (Alabi et al., 2017). These errors are often a result of negligence, ignorance or lack of awareness regarding safe behaviour and potential damage (Babatunde et al., 2020). In addition, individual characteristics can affect response and evacuation times during a fire. Such as attitude, personality, belief, behaviour, lifestyle, observational abilities, responsibility towards others and familiarity with the building’s layout (Shokouhi et al., 2020). It is crucial to implement awareness and capacity-building actions for individuals to address these issues. Training, education, awareness and publicity for fire safety and prevention are required for individuals to enhance human behaviour and establish a long-term safety culture (Shokouhi et al., 2020). Training, education and awareness for building fire management capacity building are necessary for security and safety management committee members. These ensure that they are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities and can effectively carry out their duties (Kincaid, 2022). Effective tools for these purposes are posters; media campaigns; mandatory fire safety courses in the educational curriculum; and more (Kodur et al., 2020). These are required to be updated regularly to keep up with the changing circumstances, such as new, changed or modified risks, systems, equipment and technology (Baker et al., 2013). Awareness and fire drills for emergency response capacity building are crucial to empower building occupants for rational response and safe self-evacuation during a fire (Babatunde et al., 2020).

This study systematically categorises building fire safety recommendations into six key domains relevant to PBFRM: inherent safety and prevention; detection and warning; control; emergency response; risk assessment and management; and addressing vulnerabilities and enhancing capacity.

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of reviewed articles considering the PBFRM recommendations. Despite being the most effective in reducing the likelihood of fire incidents, inherent safety and prevention measures were the least represented (two actions with the highest 24.8%). This underrepresentation is concerning, as these measures are foundational to preventing fire ignition and minimising risk at the source. In contrast, control recommendations were the most frequently addressed, with seven distinct actions identified. Among them, fire suppression and extinguishing systems received the highest consideration (70.7%). This suggests a continued emphasis on reactive strategies that manage fires after they occur, rather than preventing them. Approximately, half of the reviewed articles considered the recommendations for detection and warning. Although these are essential for early intervention, their effectiveness depends on integration with other proactive actions.

Within the emergency response category, the majority of reviewed articles (57.8%) focused on means of egress components. However, only a small proportion (8.3%) addresses keeping the means of egress free from any impediments – an essential factor for ensuring safe and efficient evacuation during emergencies. In the area of risk assessment and management, operations, maintenance and housekeeping are considered in the majority of reviewed articles (42.2%). Yet, critical actions such as the investigation of past incidents and systematic updates and rectifications were each considered in only 8.3% of the articles. This indicates a lack of emphasis on continuous improvement and learning from real-world experiences. Regarding vulnerabilities and capacity building, special attention to special buildings is considered in the majority of reviewed articles (41.3%). However, the least consideration is given to vulnerable, elderly and disabled people (8.3%). This highlights a significant gap in consideration for inclusive safety. Thus, the review reveals a disproportionate emphasis across these categories, with a notable preference for reactive over proactive recommendations.

Figure 3 shows the conceptual diagram of PBFRM. It delineates how the identified proactive recommendations implemented during the pre-fire phase can significantly influence outcomes in the during and post-fire phases. It emphasises that by reducing the likelihood of fire occurrence and enhancing in-house capacity, PBFRM not only prevents or mitigates the severity of fire incidents but also reduces dependence on external emergency services. Thereby, the frequency and impacts of building fires can be reduced through fire risk reduction.

There are numerous disaster management models and frameworks available in the existing literature (Nojavan et al., 2018; Alrehaili et al., 2022; Huo et al., 2021; Bosher et al., 2021; Lindner et al., 2021). The majority of them typically follow four key phases of disaster management. They are mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Alrehaili et al., 2022; Sawalha, 2020). Although they claim to be applicable for all disasters, they ignore the varying requirements unique to each disaster (Alrehaili et al., 2022; Lindner et al., 2021; Sawalha, 2020, VANiekerk, 2007). Furthermore, some of them do not include all aspects of disaster management (Alrehaili et al., 2022). Such as, prevention is frequently underrepresented or omitted altogether, which is one of the significant aspects of PBFRM proposed in this research. The reason is that most of the existing models and frameworks predominantly focus on natural disasters, although they claim to be universally compatible with all sorts of disasters. As a result, their applicability to building fire scenarios is limited.

In contrast, the PBFRM recommendations proposed in this research offer a disaster-specific proactive approach tailored to the complexities of building fire safety. It does not include the post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation phase. Rather, it emphasises the proactive pre-fire phase. It shows how these recommendations can be implemented during and post-fire management, leading to effective risk reduction and management. Along with its significance in building fire management, it contributes to the broader field of disaster management by bringing out the importance of disaster-specific and proactive risk management recommendations.

The limitations of this research primarily pertain to potential selection bias. The keyword choice omitted alternative terms. Again, only two databases were searched within a specified time frame (2012–2022). Studies that addressed fewer than three fire safety actions were excluded. The search was further confined to peer-reviewed papers, omitting grey literature and policy documents. These may limit the contextual depth. In addition, natural fire disasters caused by extreme weather conditions were outside the scope of this research.

Furthermore, the PRISMA protocol was applied solely to guide systematic selection of literature, ensuring methodological rigour. However, other steps of the PRISMA protocol were not applied. Such as protocol registration, sensitivity analysis and quantitative analysis. Furthermore, the quality of the included studies was not evaluated using analytical framework or critical appraisal tool.

In addition, due to the delimited scope of this research, the general statistics presented may not fully reflect broader research trends. As a result, in-depth reviews and advancements of individual actions, as well as critical comparison or assessment of impact among categories, were not explored or discussed in this research. We have not quantified trends in risk assumptions or the magnitude of emerging tendencies across the field as well.

This study contributes theoretically by promoting and advancing PBFRM as a proactive, hazard-specific approach to building fire safety, contrasting with general disaster models. It highlights the importance of addressing fire risks proactively.

This research can have significant implications for policymakers and practitioners in the building fire safety sector, highlighting the value of PBFRM. However, it could be observed from existing disaster management models and frameworks that their practical application remains limited. This is primarily due to low integration and practitioner awareness (Nojavan et al., 2018; Alrehaili et al., 2022). Therefore, in reality, disasters are frequently managed inefficiently, putting more emphasis on the reactive aspects, overlooking the use of models (Alrehaili et al., 2022; Bosher et al., 2021). Hence, to implement PBFRM effectively, its recommendations should be embedded in relevant policies and legislation (e.g. building codes and fire safety regulations), ensuring their application throughout the building lifecycle. Integration should be tailored to building type, occupancy and the needs of vulnerable groups (Section 3.2.6). For example, in health-care facilities, incorporation of PBFRM is critical, given the vulnerability of patients with limited mobility. Furthermore, policies should mandate optimal emphasis across all PBFRM categories to avoid over-reliance on reactive measures like control and under-representation of prevention. The findings and recommended strategies from this research can provide a valuable reference to policymakers for decision-making regarding their integration into policies and legislation.

In practice, fire safety professionals should integrate the recommendations from the earliest design phases rather than as an afterthought for compliance. This research can guide them in decision-making throughout the building lifecycle. Post-construction, building owners and managers must maintain and monitor fire safety systems regularly (Section 3.2.5). Authorities should develop inspection and risk assessment checklists based on the recommendations to ensure ongoing compliance. Periodic assessments should replace one-time checks to maintain proactive risk management. Capacity-building initiatives should support stakeholder engagement and effective application of PBFRM (Section 3.2.6). These practical measures can help translate the research into actionable outcomes.

Socially, the research promotes inclusive safety by considering vulnerable groups. The capacity development initiatives recommended in this research can empower the community. They can foster a positive attitude, behaviour, confidence, safety culture and capacity among the public and practitioners towards PBFRM adoption and application. The findings also have implications for the insurance sector. By enabling risk-based pricing, insurers may offer reduced premiums for buildings that implement PBFRM, thereby incentivising safer design and management practices.

Ultimately, this research contributes to preventing or mitigating building fire incidents. Its broader impacts include reduction in casualties, physical damages, economic losses and environmental impacts. Over time, this can lead to extended building lifespans and lower life-cycle costs. Thereby, PBFRM can be reinforced to create safer, resilient and sustainable built environment.

Future research should undertake further exploration, in-depth evaluations and technological advancements of each identified recommendation. They should prioritise under-represented areas such as inherent safety and prevention. Comprehensive planning strategies should be developed to integrate all PBFRM recommendations holistically. Comparative studies across categories can help identify the most impactful actions. Expanding literature reviews to include diverse databases and terminologies, along with quantitative analysis, will enhance understanding of PBFRM trends and effectiveness. Empirical validation, evidence-based research and case-based validation studies are needed to strengthen PBFRM practices across diverse contexts.

This study addresses a critical gap in fire safety research by exploring PBFRM conceptually through the lens of building fire safety recommendations. Using the PRISMA methodology, 109 articles were systematically selected and then narratively reviewed. The recommendations were categorised into six domains: inherent safety and prevention, detection and warning, control, emergency response, risk assessment and management and addressing vulnerabilities and enhancing capacity. The findings reveal that inherent safety and prevention measures are most effective in reducing fire risk, yet they are underrepresented in the literature. In contrast, control measures dominate, indicating a prevailing reactive orientation. This imbalance underscores the need to shift towards proactive risk management.

Theoretically, the study advances PBFRM as a hazard-specific, proactive framework, challenging the generalist nature of existing disaster models. Practically, it offers actionable insights for integrating PBFRM into building codes, design processes and operational protocols. The recommendations support inclusive safety, capacity development and risk-informed decision-making for PBFRM.

While the study makes significant contributions, it is limited by its exclusion of natural fire disasters and certain PRISMA steps, and article selection bias. Future research should conduct empirical validation, development of performance metrics and comparative analysis of PBFRM categories. Greater attention should be given to underexplored areas such as prevention and inclusive safety.

Ultimately, the adoption of PBFRM can substantially reduce the frequency and severity of building fire incidents. These can lead to a more resilient and sustainable built environment.

The authors acknowledge the Commonwealth’s contribution to the first author’s study towards her PhD through the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (RTP). This paper is produced from her PhD research. The authors also acknowledge the help from Ari Grant, Academic Engagement Librarian, Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Library for providing research consultation regarding the systematic review.