The Influence of Electrical Fires in Residential Homes:
`

Geospatial Analysis Pointing to Vulnerable Locations
and Equipment Failures

Alex Zheng, Fahra Rajabali, Kate Turcotte, Len Garis, Ian Pike
March 2019

The British Columbia Injury Research and Prevention Unit (BCIRPU) was established by the
Ministry of Health and the Minister’s Injury Prevention Advisory Committee in August 1997.
BCIRPU is housed within the Evidence to Innovation research theme at BC Children’s Hospital
(BCCH) and supported by the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) and the University of
British Columbia (UBC). BCIRPU’s vision is to be a leader in the production and transfer of injury
prevention knowledge and the integration of evidence-based injury prevention practices into the daily
lives of those at risk, those who care for them, and those with a mandate for public health and safety in
British Columbia.
Authors: Alex Zheng, Fahra Rajabali, Kate Turcotte, Len Garis, Ian Pike

Reproduction, in its original form, is permitted for background use for private study, education
instruction and research, provided appropriate credit is given to the BC Injury Research and
Prevention Unit and the University of the Fraser Valley. Citation in editorial copy, for newsprint,
radio and television is permitted. The material may not be reproduced for commercial use or profit,
promotion, resale, or publication in whole or in part without written permission from the
University of the Fraser Valley.
For any questions regarding this report, contact:

BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit
F508 – 4480 Oak Street
Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4
Email: bcinjury1@cw.bc.ca
Phone: (604) 875-3776
Fax: (604) 875-3569
Website: www.injuryresearch.bc.ca

Cover photo: ID 16092874© Cherkas| Dreamstime.com

University of the Fraser Valley
33844 King Road
Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M8
Email: info@ufv.ca
Phone: (604) 504-7441
Website: www.ufv.ca

Suggested Citation: Zheng A, Rajabali F, Turcotte K, Garis L, Pike I. The Influence of Electrical Fires
in Residential Homes: Geospatial Analysis Pointing to Vulnerable Locations and Equipment
Failures. A report by the BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit, for the University of the Fraser
Valley: Abbotsford, BC. March 2019.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Data Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 2
Prevalence and Burden of Electrical Fires ............................................................................................... 3

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Prevalence of Electrical Fires ....................................................................................................................... 4
Burden of Electrical Fires ............................................................................................................................... 9
Equipment of Elevated Risk ....................................................................................................................... 13

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Prevalence and Burden of Electrical Fires ............................................................................................ 18
Equipment of Elevated Risk ....................................................................................................................... 19
Limitations........................................................................................................................................................ 20

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 20
References ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Author Biographical Information.................................................................................................. 21
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Variables Coding Used .................................................................................................................................. 22

Executive Summary
Secondary suites are becoming more common as a way to relieve the burden of rising housing
prices in British Columbia and basements are often converted for this purpose. However, home
owners often circumvent the permission and inspection requirements for these conversions in
order to save on expensive upgrades for compliance. As a result, there are many under the radar
secondary suites that go uninspected and often do not meet safety standards. In order to limit the
increased risks these secondary suites pose, one plan is to send safety inspectors to visit and
inspect homes. The purpose of this study is to aid inspectors by determining whether certain
jurisdiction types, living spaces in the home (in particular basements), or equipment in the home
carry increased risks for electrical fires and should be inspected with higher priority.
Between 2004 and 2017, there were a total of 28,160 residential fire incidents in British Columbia;
of which, 2,635 (9.4%) were electrical fires. These electrical fires resulted in a total of 150
casualties (combined deaths and injuries) and just over $150 million in damages. Of the electrical
fires, 1,869 (70.9%) occurred in cities, 426 (16.2%) in municipalities, 315 (12.0%) in regional
districts, and 14 (0.4%) in First Nation lands. Fires that originated from the basement accounted for
2,688 (9.6%) of residential fires and 366 (13.9%) of electrical fires.

Prevalence for electrical fires were found to be elevated for fires that originated in basements,
common living spaces, bathrooms, laundry rooms, and garages. Fires that originated in kitchens
were less likely to be electrical fires. Jurisdiction type did not have an effect on the prevalence of
election fires. Burden of electrical fires were mixed with electrical fires having higher material costs
but lower human costs. Jurisdiction type, basement, and rooms in the home did not affect the
burden of electrical fires in terms of both human and material costs. Taken together, this is strong
evidence that risk of electrical fires is mostly due to the effects of attention and neglect, where the
risk of electrical fires is lowest in areas most accessed, such as the kitchen, and highest in areas
least accessed, such as basements, garages and laundry rooms. The fact that human and material
costs of electrical fires was not affected by where the fire originated from suggests that an
inspection scheme to reduce the prevalence of electrical fires would be effective in reducing the
overall burden of electrical fires in British Columbia.

In terms of areas of the home for electrical safety inspectors, the order of priority is recommended
to be: garage, laundry, bathroom, basement, common living space, and then other areas of the
home. For garages, permanent wiring, extension cords, and batteries should be the focus. For
laundry rooms, clothe dryers and washing machines should be the focus. For bathrooms, electrical
components with motors should be the focus. In basements, permanent wiring, switchboards,
extension cords, and clothes dryers should be the focus. For common living spaces, permanent
wiring, extension cords, outlets, surge protectors, and space heaters should be the focus. Overall,
permanent wiring, extension cords, outlets, surge protectors, appliance cords, and electrical
equipment with motors were the leading causes of electrical fires.

1

Introduction
Electrical fires can occur as a function of faulty wiring or as a result of failure or misuse of electrical
components, with the most common physical mechanisms being poor connections, arcing across a
carbonized path, arcing in air, excessive thermal insulation, and overload (Babrauskas, 2008). To
date, there are no studies published based on statistics from Canada, but in the United States,
electrical fires represented 13% of total residential structure fires, residential homes and resulted
substantial monetary and human losses (Hall, 2013).

The rising housing prices in British Columbia, particularly in the Greater Vancouver Area, have
placed considerable strain on the finances of British Columbians. Secondary suites in residential
homes are a common means to supplement income and cover mortgage payments. Basements are
often converted for this purpose in existing homes originally designed as single family dwellings.
Building code regulations in British Columbia require special permissions to be granted in order for
basements to be converted into secondary suites. However, home owners often circumvent this
requirement in order to save time and money. As a result, these under the radar secondary suites go
uninspected and often do not meet safety standards. This is particularly true in relation to electrical
wiring, resulting in a substantial hazard for electrical fires and other electrical injuries. This is of
particular concern, as basement fires, which made up 18% of all house fires (Yung & Lougheed,
2001), increased the odds of injuries (Fabio et al, 2002). In order to limit the increased risks these
unreported secondary suites pose, it is proposed to apply a regulatory scheme where homes that
contain secondary suites are inspected, paying particular attention to electrical safety.

The purpose of this study is to aid inspectors by determining whether certain jurisdiction types,
living spaces in the home (in particular basements), or equipment in the home carry elevated risks
for electrical fires and should be inspected with higher priority. Specifically, this study has 2 main
components. Firstly, to investigate whether prevalence and burden (in terms of human and
material costs) of residential electrical fires differ between: i) jurisdiction types, ii) basement and
non-basement areas, iii) rooms in the home, and iv) rooms in the basement. Secondly, for rooms
with elevated risk for electrical fires, determine whether certain equipment failures or misuses are
more likely to result in an electrical fire.

Methodology

DATA OVERVIEW
Fire events in British Columbia from 2004 to 2017 and its associated properties were extracted
from data collected by British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner (OFC). Fire events were
considered to be residential fires if the fires occurred in row, garden, town housing, condominium,
apartment, single detached, duplex, 3-plex, and 4-plex residential zones (as classified by the
property complex variable). Electrical fires were determined as fires that resulted from electrical
short circuit (as classified by the act or omission variable) or from electrical sparks (as classified by
the form of heat variable).

2

Jurisdictions were grouped into: i) cities, ii) municipalities, iii) regional districts, iv) First Nation
lands, or v) other/unknown (as classified by the location code variable). The basement variable was
grouped into whether: i) the fire originated in the basement, ii) in any other part of the home, or iii)
unknown (as classified by the fire origin level variable). The room in the home variable was
grouped into: i) common living space, ii) bedroom, iii) bathroom, iv) kitchen, v) laundry, vi) garage,
vii) passageway (e.g. hallway, stairs, corridor, elevator, lobby), or viii) other/unknown (as classified
by the fire origin area variable). Lastly, equipment of failure or misuse that led to an electrical fire
were categorized into: i) cooking equipment, ii) heating equipment, iii) appliances and equipment,
iv) electrical distribution equipment, v) other electrical equipment, vi) smoker’s material and open
flame, vii) exposure, viii) miscellaneous, ix) no igniting object, or x) cannot be determined (as
classified by the object of ignition variable).
PREVALENCE AND BURDEN OF ELECTRICAL FIRES

To investigate whether prevalence and burden of electrical differed between the four comparisons,
a two-step approach was used. The first step involved conducting a descriptive analysis and a
modeling analysis. In the second step, results from the descriptive and modeling analyses were
compared and variables that were significant in both analyses were deemed to be significant
overall, and thus can be concluded to carry an elevated, or reduced, risk for electrical fires. An alpha
level of 0.05 was used to determine significance.

The descriptive analysis involved calculating, with 95% confidence intervals, the proportion of
electrical fires to compare prevalence of electrical fires, as well as human casualty rates and dollar
cost of material damage to compare burden of electrical fires. Human casualty rates were calculated
as the sum of deaths and injuries per 100 fires. Jurisdiction types were compared to a typical fire.
Basement fires were compared with non-basement fires. Fires that originated in a specific room
were compared to a typical fire. Fires that originated in a specific room in the basement were
compared to a typical basement fire. All confidence intervals were Wald intervals and comparisons
where the confidence intervals do not overlap were deemed to be significant.
Three types of models were used for the modeling analysis. For the prevalence component, a
logistic regression model was used to determine the association between the odds of a fire being an
electrical fire with the explanatory variables interest. For the human cost component, a Poisson
regression model was used to determine the association between the number of casualties as a
result of an electrical fire with the explanatory variables of interest. For the material cost
component, a linear regression model was used to determine the association between the dollar
loss amount with the explanatory variables of interest. For the Poisson and linear regression
models, only electrical fires were included for the analysis. For all three components, two models
were conducted: i) a full model where the explanatory variables were jurisdiction type, basement,
and room type variables; and ii) a basement-only model where the explanatory variables were
jurisdiction type and basement room type variables. Both models were adjusted for the type of
residential home. For the basement-only model, only basement fires were included in the analysis.
Dummy coding was used for the jurisdiction type and room type variables in order to observe the
effects of these types compared to the average electrical fire.

3

EQUIPMENT OF ELEVATED RISK
In rooms with elevated risk for electrical fires, proportions of electrical fires that originated from
that room due to equipment failure were calculated, with 95% confidence intervals, for the leading
equipment failures and equipment categories. Due to the combination of a large number of
equipment variables and low counts for some equipment and categories, only those which resulted
in at least 14 electrical fire events (at least 1 electrical fire per year, on average) for both individual
equipment as well as equipment categories were included in the analysis.

Results

PREVALENCE OF ELECTRICAL FIRES
Descriptive Analysis
Between 2004 and 2017, there were a total of 28,164 residential fire incidents in British Columbia;
of which, 2,635 (9.4%) were electrical fires. Of the electrical fires, 1,869 (70.9%) occurred in cities,
426 (16.2%) in municipalities, 315 (12.0%) in regional districts, and 14 (0.4%) in First Nation
lands. The proportion of electrical fires was higher in municipalities (11.1%), lower in First Nation
lands (5.9%), and no significant differences for cities and regional districts when compared with
the overall proportion (Table 1)
TABLE 1: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL FIRES IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTION TYPES (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN
BOLD).
Location Type

City
Municipality
Regional District
First Nations
Others/Unknown
Overall

4

All Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Electrical Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Proportion of Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

20,844
[74.0%]
(73.5, 74.5)

1,869
[70.9%]
(69.2, 72.7)

9.0%
(8.6, 9.4)

3,059
[10.9%]
(10.5, 11.2)

315
[12.0%]
(10.7, 13.2)

10.3%
(9.2, 11.4)

11
[0.4%]
(0.2, 0.7)

6.2%
(2.7, 9.8)

3,842
[13.6%]
(13.2, 14.0)

238
[0.8%]
(0.7, 1.0)
177
[0.6%]
(0.5, 0.7)
28,164
[100%]

426
[16.2%]
(14.8, 17.6)

11.1%
(10.1, 12.1)

14
[0.5%]
(0.3, 0.8)

5.9%
(2.9, 8.9)

2,635
[100%]

9.4%
(9.0, 9.7)

Fires that originated from the basement accounted for 2,688 (9.6%) of residential fires and 366
(13.9%) of electrical fires. The proportion of basement fires being electrical fires (13.6%) was
significantly higher than the proportion of non-basement fires (9.2%) as well as the overall
proportion of 9.4% (Table 2).

TABLE 2: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT ORIGINATED FROM THE BASEMENT (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
IN BOLD).
Basement

All Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Electrical Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

No

24,001
[85.2%]
(84.8, 85.6)

2,206
[83.7%]
(82.3, 85.1)

1,471
[5.2%]
(5.0, 5.5)

63
[2.4%]
(1.8, 3.0)

Yes
Unknown
Overall

2,688
[9.6%]
(9.2, 9.9)

28,164
[100%]

Proportion of Electrical Fires
(95% CI)
9.2%
(8.8, 9.6)

366
[13.9%]
(12.6, 15.2)

13.6%
(12.3, 14.9)

2,635
[100%]

9.4%
(9.0, 9.7)

4.3%
(3.2, 5.3)

5

TABLE 3: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT ORIGINATED FROM DIFFERENT ROOMS OF THE HOME
(SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN BOLD).
Room Type

All Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Electrical Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Common Living

2,380
[8.5%]
(8.1, 8.8)

299
[11.3%]
(10.1, 12.6)

12.6%
(11.2, 13.9)

572
[2.0%]
(1.9, 2.2)

90
[3.4%]
(2.7, 4.1)

15.7%
(12.8, 18.7)

128
[4.9%]
(4.0, 5.7)

15.2%
(12.7, 17.6)

Bedroom
Bathroom
Kitchen
Laundry
Garage
Passageway
Others/Unknown
Overall

2,093
[7.4%]
(7.1, 7.7)

218
[8.3%]
(7.2, 9.3)

Proportion of Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

10.4%
(9.1, 11.7)

8,560
[30.4%]
(29.9, 30.9)

389
[14.8%]
(13.4, 16.1)

903
[3.2%]
(3.0, 3.4)

150
[5.7%]
(4.8, 6.6)

16.6%
(14.2, 19.1)

1,267
[48.1%]
(46.2, 50.0)

10.6%
(10.0, 11.1)

844
[3.0%]
(2.8, 3.2)

863
[3.1%]
(2.9, 3.3)

11,945
[42.4%]
(41.8, 43.0)
28,164
[100%]

94
[3.6%]
(2.9, 4.3)

2,635
[100%]

4.5%
(4.1, 5.0)

10.9%
(8.8, 13.0)

9.4%
(9.0, 9.7)

Compared to the overall proportion of all fires being electrical fires (9.4%), five rooms
demonstrated significantly elevated proportions of fire events being electrical fires – common
living space (12.6%), bathroom (15.7%), laundry (15.2%), and garage (16.6%). Even though
kitchen fires made up the largest proportion of both electrical fires (14.8%) and overall fires
(30.4%), the proportion of kitchen fires that were electrical fires was less than half of the overall
proportion at 4.5%. 48% of electrical fires had no identified room as the originating area (Table 3).

When looking at just basement fires, compared to the overall proportion of basement fires being
electrical fires (13.6%), two rooms had significantly lower proportions of fire events being
electrical fires – bathroom (4.3%) and kitchen (3.4%). No rooms had higher proportions of fire
events being electrical fires. 60% of electrical fires in the basement had no identified living space as
the originating area (Table 4).

6

TABLE 4: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT ORIGINATED FROM DIFFERENT ROOMS IN THE BASEMENT
OF THE HOME (SIGNIFICANT RESULTS IN BOLD).
Room Type
(Basement)

All Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Electrical Fires
[%]
(95% CI)

Proportion of Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

Common Living

297
[11.0%]
(9.9, 12.2)

44
[12.0%]
(8.7, 15.4)

14.8%
(10.8, 18.9)

46
[1.7%]
(1.2, 2.2)

2
[0.5%]
(0.0, 1.3)

Bedroom
Bathroom
Kitchen
Laundry
Garage
Passageway
Others/Unknown
Overall

Modeling Analysis

243
[9.0%]
(8.0, 10.1)

470
[17.5%]
(16.0, 18.9)

30
[8.2%]
(5.4, 11.0)

16
[4.4%]
(2.3, 6.5)

12.3%
(8.2, 16.5)

4.3%
(0.0, 10.2)
3.4%
(1.8, 5.0)

249
[9.3%]
(8.2, 10.4)

41
[11.2%]
(8.0, 14.4)

16.5%
(11.9, 21.1)

81
[3.0%]
(2.4, 3.7)

10
[2.7%]
(1.1, 4.4)

12.3%
(5.2, 19.5)

56
[2.1%]
(1.5, 2.6)

1,246
[46.4%]
(44.5, 48.2)
2,688
[100%]

5
[1.4%]
(0.2, 2.6)

218
[59.6%]
(54.5, 64.6)
366
[100%]

8.9%
(1.5, 16.4)

17.5%
(15.4, 19.6)
13.6%
(12.3, 14.9)

From the full model, it was found that jurisdiction type had no significant association with the odds
of an electrical fire. Basement fires demonstrated 39% higher odds of being an electrical fire when
compared to non-basement fires. Compared to all fires, four rooms had elevated odds ratios for
being an electrical fire: common living space (17%), bathroom (53%), laundry (43%), and garage
(86%). Kitchen fires had 64% reduced odds of being an electrical fire. The other rooms had no
significant associations with the odds of an electrical fire. For the basement only model, jurisdiction
type had no significant association with the odds of a basement electrical fire. No basement rooms
had elevated odds for an electrical fire, while bathrooms and kitchen had reduced odds of an
electrical fire of 83% and 87%, respectively (Table 5).

7

TABLE 5: LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS LOOKING AT THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE ODDS OF A FIRE BEING
AN ELECTRICAL FIRE WITH JURISDICTION TYPE, BASEMENT, AND ROOM TYPE, ADJUSTING FOR RESIDENTIAL
TYPE FOR THE FULL MODEL AND BASEMENT-ONLY MODEL (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN BOLD).
Full Model

Basement Only

Odds Ratio
(95% CI)

Odds Ratio
(95% CI)

City

1.678
(0.902, 3.121)

6.994
(0.946, 51.699)

Regional District

1.755
(0.935, 3.293)

5.315
(0.699, 40.408)

Variable
Jurisdiction Type

Municipality
First Nation
Basement

Basement vs Non-basement
Unknown vs Non-basement

1.853
(0.990, 3.468)
0.954
(0.418, 2.180)

1.390
(1.228, 1.573)
0.657
(0.505, 0.854)

Rooms

Common Living
Bedroom

Bathroom
Kitchen

Laundry
Garage

1.015
(0.869, 1.186)

N/A
(too few counts)
N/A
N/A
0.787
(0.547, 1.131)
0.689
(0.452, 1.051)

1.528
(1.205, 1.937)

0.173
(0.041, 0.726)

0.363
(0.321, 0.409)

0.133
(0.079, 0.225)

1.426
(1.163, 1.748)

0.892
(0.609, 1.304)

1.856
(1.533, 2.248)

0.412
(0.156, 1.089)

Passageway

1.051
(0.838, 1.319)

Townhome/condo vs Single detached

1.050
(0.907, 1.216)

2.627
(1.667, 4.139)

1.099
(0.929, 1.302)

0.853
(0.540, 1.348)

Residential Type

Apartment vs Single detached

2-, 3-, 4-plex vs Single detached

8

1.166
(1.017, 1.338)

5.707
(0.755, 43.114)

0.668
(0.589, 0.757)

0.653
(0.325, 1.314)

1.019
(0.666, 1.558)

Summary
Taking the descriptive and modeling results together, there were a number of variables that were
significant in both analyses. Basement, common living space, bathroom, laundry, and garage had
elevated risk for electrical fires, while kitchens had lower risk. There was not enough evidence to
indicate that jurisdiction type had an effect on prevalence for electrical fires. When just looking at
basement fires, none of the rooms carried significantly higher risk for electrical fires, while
bathrooms and kitchens had lower risk.

BURDEN OF ELECTRICAL FIRES
Descriptive Analysis

The 2,635 electrical fires in British Columbia between 2004 and 2017 resulted in a total of 150
casualties (combined deaths and injuries) and just over $150 million in damages. Human casualties
from electrical fires were found to be lower, on average, than non-electrical fires (5.7 vs 8.5 per 100
fires), however electrical fires demonstrated higher material loss ($68,706 vs $52,399, on average)
when compared to non-electrical fires (Table 6).
TABLE 6: COMPARING CASUALTY RATES AND MATERIAL LOSS RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL AND NON-ELECTRICAL
FIRES (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN BOLD).
Electrical
Fire

N

No

21725

Unknown

3800

Yes

Overall

2635

28160

Casualty Rate
(per 100 fires)
(95% CI)

Material Loss
($)
(95% CI)

8.5
(8.0, 9.0)

52,399
(47,477, 57,320)

5.7
(4.5, 6.9)

68,706
(57,807, 79,605)

10.9
(9.3, 12.5)

163,529
(129,011, 198,047)

8.6
(8.1, 9.0)

68,921
(62,810, 75,032)

When looking at electrical fires, jurisdiction type did not have an effect for either human or material
cost (Table 7). Basement electrical fires also did not differ from non-basement fires for both human
and material costs (Table 8). Kitchen fires showed lower casualty rates and material losses when
compared to an average electrical fire. Laundry fires resulted in reduced material losses but no
difference in casualty rates when compared to an average electrical fire. None of the other rooms
showed a difference in burden (Table 9). When looking at just basement electrical fires, none of the
room types showed a difference in burden when compared to the average basement electrical fire
(Table 10).

9

TABLE 7: COMPARING CASUALTY RATE AND MATERIAL LOSS AS A RESULT OF ELECTRICAL FIRES IN DIFFERENT
JURISDICTION TYPES (NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS).
N

Casualty Rate
(per 100 fires)
(95% CI)

Material Loss
($)
(95% CI)

City

1,869

6.1
(4.7, 7.5)

63,655
(49,163, 78,147)

Regional District

315

5.7
(1.3, 10.2)

93,114
(73,915, 112,313)

11

36.4
(0.0, 107.6)

92,984
(20,863, 165,104)

Location Type

Municipality

First Nations
Other

Overall

426
14

2635

3.1
(1.3, 4.8)

7.1
(0.0, 21.1)
5.7
(4.5, 6.9)

72,518
(55,451, 89,584)

58,800
(5,247, 112,353)
68,706
(57,807, 79,605)

TABLE 8: COMPARING CASUALTY RATE AND MATERIAL LOSS AS A RESULT OF BASEMENT AND NON-BASEMENT
ELECTRICAL FIRES (NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS).
N

Casualty Rate
(per 100 fires)
(95% CI)

Material Loss
($)
(95% CI)

No

2206

5.5
(4.3, 6.7)

69,572
(56,837, 82,308)

Unknown

63

0.0
(0.0, 0.0)

48,659
(0, 110,908)

Basement

Yes

Overall

10

366

7.9
(3.5, 12.3)

2635

5.7
(4.5, 6.9)

66,936
(54,623, 79,248)
68,706
(57,807, 79,605)

TABLE 9: COMPARING CASUALTY RATE AND MATERIAL LOSS AS A RESULT OF ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT
ORIGINATED FROM DIFFERENT ROOM TYPES (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN BOLD).
Room Type

N

Casualty Rate
(per 100 fires)
(95% CI)

Material Loss
($)
(95% CI)

Common Living

299

9.7
(6.0, 13.4)

62,363
(48,304, 76,422)

Bathroom

90

6.7
(0.0, 13.5)

62,451
(8,253, 116,649)

Bedroom

218

29,810
(20,212, 39,407)

128

9.4
(0.0, 20.6)

35,766
(19,556, 51,975)

94

2.1
(0.0, 5.1)

389

Garage

150

Passageway

Others/Unknown
Overall

79,887
(60,640, 99,133)

2.8
(1.2, 4.5)

Kitchen

Laundry

10.1
(5.2, 15.0)

1267
2635

10.0
(3.6, 16.4)

99,638
(73,054, 126,223)

4.2
(2.7, 5.6)

81,540
(60,340, 102,740)

5.7
(4.5, 6.9)

52,421
(25,131, 79,712)
68,706
(57,807, 79,605)

TABLE 10: COMPARING CASUALTY RATE AND DOLLAR LOSS AS A RESULT OF BASEMENT ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT
ORIGINATED FROM DIFFERENT ROOM TYPES (SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN BOLD).
Room Type
(Basement)

N

Casualty Rate
(per 100 fires)
(95% CI)

Material Loss
($)
(95% CI)

Common Living

44

13.4
(1.5, 25.7)

72,538
(41,661, 103,415)

Bathroom

2

0.0
(0.0, 0.0)

450
(0, 940)

Bedroom

30

10.0
(0.0, 20.9)

Kitchen

16

6.3
(0.0, 18.5)

Garage

5

20.0
(0.0, 59.2)

Laundry
Passageway

Others/Unknown
Overall

41
10

218
366

109,028
(53,503, 164,553)
47,153
(6,056, 88,250)

17.1
(0.0, 46.0)

82,240
(36,647, 127,833)

0.0
(0.0, 0.0)

68,622
(5,995, 131,248)

7.9
(3.5, 12.3)

66,936
(54,623, 79,248)

5.0
(1.2, 8.9)

31,440
(0, 89,594)

59,932
(44,573, 75,292)

11

Modeling Analysis
Results from the Poisson model indicated that electrical fires in cities, municipalities, and regional
districts had reduced casualties. However, this was likely because the few cases where the electrical
fires occurred without a classifiable jurisdiction had high casualty rates, thus these variables should
be interpreted with severe limitations. Jurisdiction type did not have a significant association with
material loss. Burden from electrical fires did not differ between whether they originated from the
basement or not. Electrical fires that originated from common living space (119%), bedroom
(139%), laundry (105%), and garage (151%) all had elevated casualty rates, but did not have
significant association with material loss. For basement electrical fires, jurisdiction type was not
significant associated with burden. Basement electrical fires that originated from common living
space (219%) and laundry (228%) had higher casualty rates, while those that originated from the
bedroom resulted in higher material loss ($50,590). None of the other room types had significant
associations with burden of basement electrical fires (Table 11).

TABLE 11: RESULTS FROM THE POISSON (CASUALTY RATE) AND LINEAR REGRESSION (MATERIAL LOSS) MODELS
SHOWING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN JURISDICTION TYPE AND WHERE THE ELECTRICAL FIRE ORIGINATED FROM
WITH THE CASUALTY RATE AND MATERIAL LOSS FOR RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL FIRES FOR THE FULL MODEL
AND BASEMENT-ONLY MODEL (SIGNIFICANT RESULTS IN BOLD).
Full Model

Basement only

Casualty Rate

Material Loss

Casualty Rate

Material Loss

Rate Ratio
(95% CI)

Effect
(95% CI)

Rate Ratio
(95% CI)

Effect
(95% CI)

City

0.175
(0.063, 0.484)

-25,965
(-1195,581, 143,649)

N/A
(too few counts)

9,595
(-182,414, 292,414)

Regional District

0.167
(0.056, 0.497)

1,589
(-170,192, 173,369)

N/A
(too few counts)

-3,785
(-244,803, 237,231)

Variable
Jurisdiction Type

Municipality

0.093
(0.030, 0.288)

First Nation

0.217
(0.024, 1.966)

Basement

Basement vs Nonbasement

-36,822
(-262,626, 188981)

N/A
(too few counts)
N/A
(too few counts)

18,541
(-221,869, 258,951)
N/A
(too few counts)

Unknown vs Nonbasement

1.463
(0.961, 2.230)

N/A
(too few counts)

-2,763
(-35,134, 29,607)

N/A

N/A

Common Living

2.185
(1.386, 3.445)

-20,926
(-57,049, 15,195)

3.187
(1.146, 8.867)

12,954
(-26,596, 52,505)

Bathroom

1.634
(0.696, 3.836)

-51,339
(-84,214, 18,463)

N/A
(too few counts)

Rooms

12

-16,412
(-187,488, 154,662)

Bedroom

2.389
(1.450, 3.935)

Kitchen

0.708
(0.367, 1.365)

-18,016
(-89,936, 53,903)

-2,063
(-43,180, 39,053)
-45,902
(-98,054, 6,249)

N/A

2.000
(0.555, 7.200)

1.617
(0.202, 12.964)

N/A

50,590
(4,271, 96,908)

-41,350
(-212,647, 129,946)
-6,398
(-69,525, 56,729)

Laundry

2.049
(1.090, 3.850)

Passageway

0.495
(0.120, 2.048)

Garage

Residential Type
Townhome/condo vs
Single detached
Apartment vs Single
detached

2-, 3-, 4-plex vs Single
detached

2.510
(1.405, 4.483)

-45,288
(-97,412, 6,835)

22,668
(-18,015, 63,352)

-33,377
(-94,064, 27,308)

3.278
(0.388, 27.721)

N/A
(too few counts)

-21,528
(-130,995, 87,938)

0.860
(0.459, 1.611)

-11,967
(-50.802, 26,867)

0.438
(0.058, 3.337)

-26,527
(-70,993, 17,939)

0.965
(0.486, 1.917)

-11,163
(-55,633, 33,307)

0.594
(0.077, 4.607)

-32,209
(-84,605, 20,187)

1.418
(0.906, 2.219)

18,279
(-30,351, 66,911)

3.283
(1.258, 8.565)

27,771
(-8,993, 58,537)

2.818
(0.935, 8.492)

9,389
(-68,180, 86,958)

-7,012
(-53,039, 39,014)

Summary
Electrical fires had lower human cost but higher material cost when compared with non-electrical
fires. None of the variables showed consistently significant associations between the descriptive
and modeling analyses, thus was concluded that there was not enough evidence to indicate that
jurisdiction type, basement, or room type had an effect on the overall burden of electrical fires.
EQUIPMENT OF ELEVATED RISK

Electrical distribution equipment was the largest category and contributed to about half (50.1%) of
all causes of the 2,635 electrical fires in British Columbia from 2004 to 2017. In terms of individual
equipment, permanent wiring or cables were the cause of 19.9% of the cases, while cords, switches,
outlets, power bars made up an additional 16.7%. Illegal electrical bypasses were the cause of only
1.9% of electrical fires (Table 12). Unclassified equipment made up between 8% and 53% of the
equipment categories.

13

TABLE 12: PROPORTION OF ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION OF EQUIPMENT IN THE
HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL
FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Igniting Object
(Overall)

Electrical Fires
(#)

Proportion of All Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

Cooking Equipment

196

7.4%
(6.4, 8.4)

Oven of stove, rage

39

1.5%
(1.0, 1.9)

Stove, range, top burner area

Microwave oven

Toaster, waffle iron

Electric kettle, coffee maker

Cooking equipment - unclassified

35
23
15
15

2.4%
(1.8, 3.0)
1.3%
(0.9, 1.8)
0.9%
(0.5, 1.2)
0.6%
(0.3, 0.9)
0.6%
(0.3, 0.9)

Appliances and Equipment

329

12.5%
(11.2, 13.7)

Washing machine

28

1.1%
(0.7, 1.5)

Clothes dryer

Individual refrigeration unit

Television, computer monitor

77

26
14

Appliances and equipment - unclassified

130

Motor

69

Other Electrical Equipment

Incandescent lamp, light bulb
Florescent lamp

1.0%
(0.6, 1.4)
0.5%
(0.3, 0.8)
4.9%
(4.1, 5.8)

15.3%
(14.0, 16.7)

41

1.6%
(1.1, 2.0)

29

226

Water heater

45

Stationary space heater

2.9%
(2.3, 3.6)

404

Other electrical equipment - unclassified
Heating Equipment

14

64

201
40

2.6%
(2.0, 3.2)
1.1%
(0.7, 1.5)
8.6%
(7.5, 9.6)
7.6%
(6.6, 8.6)
1.7%
(1.2, 2.2)
1.5%
(1.1, 2.0)

Central heating unit

38

1.4%
(0.9, 1.8)

Heating equipment - unclassified

38

1.4%
(1.0, 1.9)

Portable space heater

27

1.0%
(0.6, 1.4)

Electrical Distribution Equipment

1321

50.1%
(48.2, 52.0)

Extension cord

146

5.5%
(4.7, 6.4)

Permanent electric wiring, cable (non-aluminum)

Switch, outlet

Permanent electric wiring, cable (aluminum)
Power bars, surge protector
Panel board, switchboard
Appliance cord

Electrical bypass (illegal operations)
Battery, rectifier

Copper conductors

453

121
70
63
56
55
50
49
22

Electrical distribution equipment - unclassified

226

Miscellaneous

41

Exposure

No Igniting Object

Cannot be Determined
Overall

23

22
92

2635

17.2%
(15.8, 18.6)
4.6%
(3.8, 5.4)
2.7%
(2.0, 3.3)
2.4%
(1.8, 3.0)
2.1%
(1.6, 2.7)
2.1%
(1.5. 2.6)
1.9%
(1.4, 2.4)
1.9%
(1.3, 2.4)
0.8%
(0.5, 1.2)
6.9%
(5.9, 7.8)
0.9%
(0.5, 1.2)
1.6%
(1.1, 2.0)
0.8%
(0.5, 1.2)
3.5%
(2.8, 4.2)
100%

Basements, common living spaces, bathrooms, laundry rooms, and garages were found to carry
elevated risk for electrical fires. Basements and common living spaces showed similar patterns
where electrical distribution equipment were the cause of over half of the electrical fires (52.5%
and 53.5%, respectively). The main difference between the two rooms was that clothes dryers
(4.6%) were a contributing factor for basement electrical fires, while stationary space heaters
(5.0%) were a contributing factor for common living space electrical fires, though both accounted
for just a small proportion (Tables 13 and 14).

15

TABLE 13: PROPORTION OF BASEMENT ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION OF
EQUIPMENT IN THE HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT
LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Igniting Object
(Basement)

Basement
Electrical Fires
(#)

Proportion of Basement Electrical
Fires
(95% CI)

Heating Equipment

38

10.4%
(7.3, 13.5)

Clothes dryer

17

4.6%
(2.5, 6.8)

Appliances and Equipment
Appliances and equipment - unclassified

44
14

Electrical Distribution Equipment

192

Panel board, switchboard

17

Permanent electric wiring, cable (non-aluminum)

Extension cord

Permanent electric wiring, cable (aluminum)

Electrical distribution equipment - unclassified
Other Electrical Equipment

Other electrical equipment - unclassified
Basement Overall

69

17
14
21
59
31

366

10.4%
(7.3, 13.5)
3.8%
(1.9, 5.8)
52.5%
(47.3, 57.6)
18.9%
(14.8, 22.9)
4.6%
(2.5, 6.8)
4.6%
(2.5, 6.8)
3.8%
(1.9, 5.8)

5.7%
(3.4, 8.1)
16.1%
(12.4, 19.9)
8.5%
(5.6, 11.3)
100%

In bathrooms, electrical distribution equipment only made up 26.7% of all bathroom electrical fires,
with the only object of importance being electrical equipment with motors, which made up 17.8%
of all bathroom electrical fires (Table 15). In laundry rooms, clothes dryers were the cause to
almost half (45.3%) of all laundry room electrical fires, while washing machines were the cause of
an additional 14.1% (Table 16). In garages, electrical distribution equipment was the cause of over
half of the garage electrical fires (62.7%), with permanent non-aluminum wiring or cable (14.0%),
extension cords (12.7%), and batteries (10.0%) being major contributors (Table 17).

16

TABLE 14: PROPORTION OF COMMON LIVING ROOM ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION
OF EQUIPMENT IN THE HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT
LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Common Living
Electrical Fires
(#)

Proportion of Common Living
Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

Heating Equipment

37

12.4%
(8.6, 16.1)

Appliances and Equipment

38

Igniting Object
(Common Living)

Stationary space heater

15

Electrical Distribution Equipment

160

Permanent electric wiring, cable (non-aluminum)

34

Power bars, surge protector

26

Extension cord

Switch, outlet

Electrical distribution equipment - unclassified
Other Electrical Equipment

Other electrical equipment - unclassified
Common Living Overall

26

23
15
49
26

299

5.0%
(2.5, 7.5)
12.7%
(8.9, 16.5)

53.5%
(47.9, 59.2)
11.4%
(7.8, 15.0)
8.7%
(5.5, 11.9)
8.7%
(5.5, 11.9)
7.7%
(4.7, 10.7)

5.0%
(2.5, 7.5)
16.4%
(12.2, 20.6)
8.7%
(5.5, 11.9)
100%

TABLE 15: PROPORTION OF BATHROOM ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION OF SPECIFIC
EQUIPMENT IN THE HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT
LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Bathroom
Electrical Fires
(#)

Proportion of Bathroom Electrical
Fires
(95% CI)

Electrical Distribution Equipment

24

26.7%
(17.5, 35.8)

Motor

16

17.8%
(9.9, 25.7)

Igniting Object
(Bathroom)

Other Electrical Equipment

Other electrical equipment - unclassified
Bathroom Overall

39
17
90

46.3%
(33.1, 53.6)
18.9%
(10.8, 27.0)
100%

17

TABLE 16: PROPORTION OF LAUNDRY ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION OF SPECIFIC
EQUIPMENT IN THE HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT
LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Laundry
Electrical Fires
(#)

Proportion of Laundry Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

Appliances and Equipment

79

61.7%
(53.3, 70.1)

Washing machine

18

14.1%
(8.0, 20.1)

Igniting Object
(Laundry)

Clothes dryer

Electrical Distribution Equipment
Laundry Overall

58
29

128

45.3%
(36.7, 53.9)
22.7%
(15.4, 29.9)
100%

TABLE 17: PROPORTION OF GARAGE ELECTRICAL FIRES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THE IGNITION OF SPECIFIC
EQUIPMENT IN THE HOME. ONLY INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT AND EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES THAT CAUSED AT
LEAST 14 ELECTRICAL FIRE EVENTS ARE SHOWN.
Garage Electrical
Fires
(#)

Proportion of Garage Electrical Fires
(95% CI)

Appliances and Equipment

17

11.3%
(6.3, 16.4)

Permanent electric wiring, cable (non-aluminum)

21

Igniting Object
(Garage)

Electrical Distribution Equipment
Extension cord

Battery, rectifier
Garage Overall

94

62.7%
(54.9, 70.4)

19

12.7%
(7.3, 18.0)

15

150

14.0%
(8.4, 19.6)
10.0%
(5.2, 14.8)
100%

Discussion
PREVALENCE AND BURDEN OF ELECTRICAL FIRES
It was found that electrical fires made up approximately 9.4% of all residential fires in British
Columbia. Unfortunately, there has been no Canadian data published regarding electrical fires, thus
data from the United States were used for comparison purposes. Proportion of electrical fires in
British Columbia was lower than the 13% reported between 2007 and 2011 in the United States.
However, when comparing casualty rates, electrical fires in British Columbia resulted in a higher
casualty rate (5.7 vs. 4.2 casualties per 100 fires) than the United States (Hall, 2013). The average
cost of damage in British Columbia was also higher at $68,706 per electrical fire incident compared

18

to the Canadian dollar equivalent of $36,000 in the United States (Hall, 2013). This discrepancy in
dollar value of loss is likely due to the higher property value in British Columbia compared to the
United States in general and may also be related to differences in insurance coverages and systems.

Basement fires made up 9.6% of all residential structural fires, which is much lower than the 18.1%
reported in the United States (Yung & Lougheed, 2001), and made up 13.9% of all electrical fires in
British Columbia. Kitchen fires made up 30.4% of all fires, which is similar to the 25.6% reported in
the United States (Yung & Lougheed, 2001), but only 4.5% of all electrical fires in British Columbia.

Both the descriptive and modeling analyses showed that fires that originated from basements,
common living spaces, bathrooms, laundry rooms, and garages had a higher chance of being an
electrical fire. Conversely, fires that originated in kitchens had lower chance of being an electrical
fire. This may be a function of attention and neglect, as residents pay more attention to electrical
equipment in the kitchen, but less so in other less accessed locations, such as the basement. This
was evident in terms of the areas of the home, where a gradient was seen where rooms with the
highest odds of being an electrical fire (order: garage, bathroom, laundry, common living space,
bedroom, passageway, kitchen) was also likely the order of the area of home from least accessed to
most accessed. This is further strengthened by the fact that electrical fires resulted in lower
casualties (5.7 vs. 8.5 per 100 fires), but higher property damages ($68,700 vs. $52,400) when
compared to non-electrical fires. As electrical fires occur more often in less accessed areas of the
home, it is less likely for people to be injured by the fire and more likely for the fire to cause more
damage.

The fact that burden, in terms of both human and material costs, of the electrical fire was not
affected by the jurisdiction type, whether it originated in the basement or different rooms of the
home show that the burden of electrical fires can be reduced by reducing the prevalence of
electrical fires. Taken together, this suggests that an inspection scheme would be effective in
reducing the overall burden of electrical fires in British Columbia. Less accessed rooms, including
basements, should be inspected with higher priority. Basements should be inspected as a whole, as
no specific basement rooms carried elevated risk for electrical fires.
EQUIPMENT OF ELEVATED RISK

As expected, electrical distribution equipment was the category found to be the largest culprit and
were responsible for about half of the electrical fires. Over half of these were equipment that are
permanent fixtures in the home, such as permanent electrical wiring, outlets, and switchboards.
Another quarter of these electrical distribution equipment were items that are more mobile, such
as extension cords, power bars, and appliance cords. Other leading causes of electrical fires
included clothes dryers and electrical equipment with motors. These types of equipment should
take priority when homes are inspected.

The leading causes were found to be different for the different rooms with elevated risk for
electrical fires. In basements, permanent wiring, switchboards, and extension cords would be the
focus of inspection, while also paying attention to clothes dryers. In common living spaces,
permanent wiring, extension cords, outlets, and surge protectors should take priority, with space
heaters being another item to be aware of. In bathrooms, electrical components with motors, such

19

as fans and hairdryers, should be the focus of inspection. In laundry rooms, clothe dryers and
washing machines should be the focus of inspection. In garages, permanent wiring, extension cords,
and batteries should be the focus for inspection.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that illegal electrical bypass was responsible for less than 2% of all
electrical fires. This may indicate that although inspections should help reduce electrical fires, but
these under the radar secondary suites may not need to be the primary targets of inspection.
However, since electrical distribution failure was the most likely cause of basement electrical fires,
basement suites should still be a target for inspection.
LIMITATIONS

There were a few limitations to this study. The two main components affecting the interpretations
of the results were the fact that around 50% of electrical fires had no identified room of origin and
that unclassified equipment made up between 8% and 53% of equipment categories. However, this
was still the best data to date and conclusions formed would be useful for safety inspection
purposes.

Conclusions

Prevalence for electrical fires was found to be elevated for fires that originated in basements,
common living spaces, bathrooms, laundry rooms, and garages. Jurisdiction type did not have an
effect on the prevalence of election fires. Burden of electrical fires were mixed with electrical fires
having higher material costs but lower human costs. Jurisdiction type, basement, and rooms in the
home did not affect the burden of electrical fires in terms of both human and material costs. Taken
together, this suggests that an inspection scheme would be effective in reducing the overall burden
of electrical fires in British Columbia. Electrical distribution equipment was responsible for about
half of all electrical fires, thus should take priority for inspections overall. Different equipment
should also take priority when inspecting the different areas of the home that carry elevated risk
for electrical fires.

Recommendations

In terms of areas of the home for electrical safety inspectors, the order of priority is recommended
to be: garage, laundry, bathroom, basement, common living space, and then other areas of the
home. For garages, permanent wiring, extension cords, and batteries should be the focus. For
laundry rooms, clothe dryers and washing machines should be the focus. For bathrooms, electrical
components with motors should be the focus. In basements, permanent wiring, switchboards,
extension cords, and clothes dryers should be the focus. For common living spaces, permanent
wiring, extension cords, outlets, surge protectors, and space heaters should be the focus. Overall,
permanent wiring, extension cords, outlets, surge protectors, appliance cords, and electrical
equipment with motors were the leading causes of electrical fires.

20

References
Babrauskas V (2008). Research on Electrical Fires: The State of the Art. Fire Safety Science –
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium, pp 3-18.

Fabio A, Ta M, Strotmeyer S, Li W, Schmidt E (2002). Incident-level risk factors for firefighter
injuries at structural fires. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44(11), 1059 – 63.

Hall, JR (2013). Home Electrical Fires. National Fire Protection Association. Quincy, MA, USA.

Yung D, Lougheed GD (2001). Fatal Fire Scenarios in Canadian Houses. Institute for Research in
Construction. Montreal, QC, Canada.

Author Biographical Information

Alex Zheng is a Biostatistician/Researcher at the BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit. He holds
an MSc in Biostatistics. Contact him at alex.zheng@bcchr.ca.
Fahra Rajabali is a Researcher with the BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit. She holds an MSc
in Health Information Science. Contact her at frajabali@bcchr.ca.

Kate Turcotte is a Researcher with the BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit. She holds an MSc in
Epidemiology. Contact her at kturcotte@bcchr.ca.

Len Garis is the Fire Chief for the City of Surrey, British Columbia, an Adjunct Professor in the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice & Associate to the Centre for Social Research at the
University of the Fraser Valley (UFV), a member of the Affiliated Research Faculty at John Jay
College of Criminal Justice in New York, and a faculty member of the Institute of Canadian Urban
Research Studies at Simon Fraser University. Contact him at Len.Garis@ufv.ca.
Dr. Ian Pike is Professor of Pediatrics at UBC; Investigator and Co-Lead of the Evidence to
Innovation Research Theme at the Research Institute at BC Children’s Hospital; Director of the BC
Injury Research and Prevention Unit, and Co-Executive Director for The Community Against
Preventable Injuries. Contact him at ipike@bcchr.ca.

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Gordon Anderson, BC Fire Commissioner, for the provision of the BC data
discussed in this report.

21

Appendix
VARIABLES CODING USED
Variable

Description

Coding

Residential
PC3100

Residential - row, garden, town housing, condominium

PC3500

Residential - duplex, 3-plex, 4-plex

PC3200
PC3400

Residential - apartment

Residential - single detached

Others
Others
Electrical Fire
AO4400

Electrical short circuit

AO0000

Act of Omission - cannot be determined

FH2000
FH3000

AO0008
FH0000
FH0009

Others
Basement

Spark, electrical (includes arc, discharge)

Spark, static electrical (includes lightning)
Act or Omission - not applicable

Form of Heat - cannot be determined
Form of Heat - unclassified
Others

LV1000

Basement, sub-basement

Others
Rooms

Others

LV0000
OA1400
OA2100

Cannot be determined

Lounge, living room (includes music room, common room, TV room, den, recreation
room, family room, sitting room)

OA2500

Sleeping - under 5 occupants (includes patients' room, bedroom, cell, lockup)
Washroom, locker area (includes checkroom, cloakroom, rest room, bathroom,
powder room, toilet, shower room, sauna bath)

OA3200

Laundry area (includes wash house)

OA3100
OA4700
OA1010
OA1020
OA1030
OA1040
OA1050
OA1060

Kitchen, cooking area

Vehicle storage (includes garage, carport)
Hallway, corridor

Stairway, exterior (includes fire escape, ramp)
Stairway, interior (includes ramp)
Escalator

Lobby, entrance way

Elevator (includes shaft and machinery room)

Others
Others
Igniting Objects
IG10201900
Cooking equipment
IG21002900
Heating equipment

22

Residential
Non-residential
Electrical
Unknown
Non-electrical
Basement
Unknown

Non-basement
Common living
Bedroom

Bathroom
Kitchen

Laundry
Garage

Passageway

Others/unknown
Cooking
Heating

IG31004990
IG51005900
IG61006900
IG71107900
IG81008900
IG90009990
IG1010
IG0000

Appliances and equipment

Electrical distribution equipment
Other electrical equipment

Smoker's material and open flame
Exposure

Miscellaneous

No igniting object

Cannot be determined

Appliances
Electrical
Distribution

Other Electrical
Open flame
Exposure

Miscellaneous

No Igniting object
Unknown

23