Public buildings are very crucial in the economy of every country; they have been contributing to the economy of nations through trades (Baah-Ennumh & Adom-Asamoah, 2012; Sunday & Lawan, 2019). Many developing nations do not have strategies to protect their citizens that work in public buildings of which markets, institutions, school buildings are inclusive, and they are exposed to several calamities that generate from fires among others without insurance cover of any kind (Leo, 2014, Sunday & Lawan, 2019). As a result of this, whenever any unforeseen calamity such as fire strikes the people who are barely above the poverty line, they sink into the poverty trap (Sunday & Lawan, 2019). There are numerous causes of fire outbreak; while some are caused by mankind, others are as a result of nature. In a built-up environment, fire outbreak cannot be eliminated outrightly but could be prevented, reduced or mitigated through preparedness measures, and preventing fire outbreak totally can be very costly or even unattainable. However, necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of fire in the buildings and the neighbourhoods must be engaged to subdue the menace (Monisola, 2023; Obasa et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2012). Considering various fire disaster events in recent time, the study examines the causes and extent of fire-fighting equipment availability among public buildings in Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria.

Materials and Method

Study Area

Abuja, located centrally in Nigeria, is the nation's capital city (Figure 1). Kaduna borders Abuja to the north, Niger state to the west, Nasarawa state to the east and southeast, and Kogi state to the southwest. Abuja was officially named the capital of Nigeria on December 12, 1991 (Wambebe & Duan, 2020). Abuja is found on latitude 7° 25’’ and 9˚ 20’’ North of the Equator and longitude 5˚ 45’’ and 7˚ 39’’ East of the Greenwich. The overall land area is 7315 km2. Abuja's population currently surpasses 2.5 million people, according to Wambebe & Duan (2020). Abuja's population has grown by over 140%, making it the fastest-growing metropolis in Africa and one of the most rapidly expanding globally (Wambebe & Duan, 2020).

Study Design, Population and Sample Size

The study adopted cross-sectional survey research. Cross-sectional survey research is a specific type of field study that involves the collection of data from a sample of elements drawn from a well-defined population through the use of a questionnaire (Visser et al., 2002). The population of the study comprised of all the occupants from the selected public buildings in the city phases and selected districts of FCT (Asokoro, Central Area, Garki, Guzape, Maitama, Wuse I,  Wuse II, Utako) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the Study Area and Selected Districts

To have proper coverage, the National Population Commission data of 2006 of AMAC was used as the base year (778,567) and projected to 2023 using an annual growth rate of 3.2% using the Malthus Exponential Model. To get an optimum sample of the target population (1,339,135) the T. Yamane (1967) formula for sample size determination will be adopted;

Where:  e= Level of precision (0.05), N= Population, n= Sample size, 1= Constant

The sample size was equally distributed among the districts where fifty (50) respondents were randomly selected from each district making a total sample size of 400. A total of Four Hundred (400) questionnaires were administered across the study area districts and the sourced respondents; however, Three Hundred and Seventy-six (376) of the questionnaires were properly filled, returned and subjected to further analysis. Approximately, the retrieved questionnaire represents 94% of the aggregated amount administered.

Data Collection Procedure

Questionnaire was used to elicit information from the respondents. The questionnaire adopted for the study made use of closed-ended format and Likert 3-points which was divided into sections: Section A: the section captured the demographic details of the respondents (occupants) so as to be able to describe respondents in terms of gender, age, level of education, type of building, years of occupancy and status. Section B: the section set out questions that provided answers to the research question regarding the causes and frequent of fire outbreak events and extent of fire-fighting equipment availability among public building in FCT using close-ended and Likert 3-points scale.

Data Analysis

The retrieved questionnaires were coded and subjected to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for proper analysis. The questionnaire coding was done with MS Excel before being transferred to the Data entry of SPSS. The data of the study were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics: Using the SPSS window (Version 22), the descriptive statistics tool such as frequency counts and percentages of response was adopted for the analysis. The use of such statistics allows the researcher to present the evidence of the study in a way that can be understandable and makes conclusion concerning the variables of study (Baridam, 2001). The hypothesis of the study was tested using one-sample t-test. As inferential statistics, t-test allows for exploring the statistical difference in the mean from data collected from a single group variable. The analysis was carried out at 95% confidence level.

Results

Socio-Demographic Details of the Respondents

The socio-economic details of the respondents were presented in Table 1. The analysis revealed that 51.1% of the respondents were male while 48.9% were female. Also, the age of the respondents indicated that most respondents are within age group 30-40 years which represents 37.8% of the respondents. Considering the level of education of the respondents, the outcome revealed that 34.8% have attained bachelors’ degree while the least respondents have attained doctorate degree of education representing 5.9% of the total population. From the outcome, 6.6%  of the respondents are occupants/staff in government-owned public building, 8.2% of the occupants represents school building, 21.8% represents healthcare facilities, 34.3% represents commercial buildings such as banks, warehouse, shopping mall and offices while 25.3% and 2.9% of the respondents represent recreational facilities such as hotels, parks, and cinema and religious building respectively. Considering the years occupancy, 34.6% of the respondents indicates to have occupied the building for less than 5 years, 39.4% of the respondents have occupied the building in the last 5- 10 years while 16.2% and 9.8% of the respondents indicated to have occupied the building in 11-15years and 16 years above respectively. From the analysis, 22.3% of the respondents had ownership status to their public building while 60.6% of the respondents had renter status to their public building.

Table 1: Socio-Demographic Details of the Respondents

Causes and Frequent of Fire Disaster among Public Building

The causes and frequent of fire disaster among the public building was examined and the outcome was presented in Table 2. From the outcome, 53.7% of the respondents indicated to be aware of fire incidents and accidents among public buildings in the districts while 46.3% are not aware of fire incidents and accidents among public buildings. Considering the perceived cause of the fire events, 5.3% of the respondents indicated the fire was caused by arson, 22.9% of the respondents indicated electrical fault, 17.5% indicated negligence, 17.3% indicated overload of electrical appliance, 13.6% indicated substandard electrical and building material while 3.2% and 20.2% of the respondents indicated defective generators and careless in the use of fire as the perceived causes of fire incidents among public buildings respectively.

Among the respondents, 2.9% indicated that the fire incidents/accidents occur in less than 6-months, 10.6% of the respondents indicate that the frequency of the fire incidents among public buildings is within one years, 46.3% indicated between 2-3 years while 16.8% and 23.4% of the respondents indicate that the frequency of the fire incidents among public buildings is 4-5years and 6years above respectively. Considering the satisfaction of the respondents with available fire-fighting equipment available in the building, 19.7% of the respondents indicated to be satisfied while 76.9% and 3.4% of the respondents are not satisfied and undecided respectively.

Table 2: Causes and Frequent of Fire Disaster among Public Building

Fire-Fighting Equipment Availability Among The Public Buildings

From Table 3, the outcome on the fire-fighting equipment available among the public building revealed that 23.1% of the respondents indicated that emergency light is available in their building and functioning while 76.9% revealed that the equipment is not available. 76.9% of the respondents indicated their building has fire safety signs while 9.6% and 13.6% of the respondents indicate that fire safety signs are not available or available but not functioning in their building. 3.2% of the respondents revealed that fire hydrant is available and functioning in their building while 72.1% and 23.1% revealed that fire hydrant is not available and available but not functioning respectively. Among the respondents, 89.1% indicated fire extinguisher is available and functioning in their building while 7.4% and 3.5% indicated that its not available and available but not functioning respectively. 20.2% of the respondents revealed that fire detector is available and functioning in their building while 66.2% and 13.6% revealed that fire detector is not available and available but not functioning respectively. Among the respondents, 94.7% indicated that sprinkler not available while 5.3% revealed that sprinkler is available but not functioning. 28.2% of the respondents revealed that smoke detector is available and functioning in their building while 67.0% and 4.8% revealed that smoke detector is not available and available but not functioning respectively. Among the respondents, 92.5% indicated that fire blanket not available while 7.4% revealed that fire blanket is available but not functioning. 17.3% of the respondents revealed that fire alarm system is available and functioning in their building while 69.1% and 13.6% revealed that fire alarm system is not available and available but not functioning respectively. Among the respondents, 72.3% indicated that sand is available for fire-fighting purpose in the building while 27.7% revealed that sand is not available in the building.

Table 3: Fire-Fighting Equipment Availability Among The Public Buildings

Key: Available and Functioning (AF), Not Available (NA), Available, but not Functioning (ANF )

Using One-sample t-test, difference in perceived causes of fire disaster among public buildings were analysed using the following formulated hypothesis.

H_o           There is no significant difference in the perceived causes of fire disaster among public buildings in federal capital territory.

H_i            There is a significant difference in the perceived causes of fire disaster among public buildings in federal capital territory.

Table 4a presented the descriptive analysis of the ANOVA, the mean difference across the samples was 1.58 with standard deviation 0.81. Using the significant value (sig. or p-value) to decide the acceptance or rejection of H_o (where H_o is accepted when p-value > 0.05 or rejected when p-value is ≤ 0.05), the Table 4.4b showed that the p-value was 0.000 (where p ≤ 0.05); hence, the H₁ Accepted; that is, there is a significant difference in the perceived causes of fire disaster among public buildings in federal capital territory.

Table 4a: Descriptive Statistics of the Analysis

Table 4b: Test for Significance Difference in Perceived Cause of Fire Disaster