ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 208
www.rsisinternational.org
At-Risk Building Fire Safety Awareness Practices: A Case Study in
Bandar Hilir, Melaka
Amrizal bin Abdul Jalil
1*
, Mohd Fauzi bin Kamarudin
2
1,2
Fakulti Pengurusan Teknologi dan Teknousahawanan, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.92800020
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 16 November 2025; Published: 18 December 2025
ABSTRACT
This study explores the integration of heritage conservation with fire safety in historic buildings and districts,
with a particular focus on Bandar Hilir, Melaka. It addresses technical, operational, and governance challenges
while identifying global best practices adaptable to local contexts. A systematic review guided by PRISMA 2020
(2020–2025) and complemented by narrative/thematic synthesis underpinned by Constructivist Grounded
Theory (CGT) was conducted. Twenty-five high-quality sources—including peer-reviewed articles, standards,
and agency guidelines—were critically appraised using MMAT, CASP, and JBI tools, with qualitative
confidence assessed through GRADE-CERQual. The findings highlight five interrelated themes: (i) the tension
between authenticity and safety, requiring performance-based interpretation and equivalency documentation; (ii)
the evolution of risk assessment approaches from sensitivity markers to weighted resilience indices
(AHP/CRITIC) and value-at-risk frameworks for balancing costs and benefits; (iii) heritage-sensitive
technologies such as wireless detectors, wireless alarms, and linear systems that minimize invasive interventions;
(iv) operational disciplines encompassing hot-work control, housekeeping audits, regular training, incident pre-
planning, and collection salvage strategies; and (v) multi-agency governance at both building and urban scales,
structured around the prevention–preparedness–response–recovery cycle. Drawing from these insights, the study
proposes a layered integration model for Melaka: ensuring technical legitimacy through performance-based
equivalency; prioritizing interventions via AHP/CRITIC and value-at-risk; adopting “invisible” fire safety
technologies; institutionalizing operational practices; and establishing a heritage city technical committee with
measurable KPIs. The study contributes by merging engineering evidence, risk-prioritization frameworks, and
CGT-informed social narratives to bridge the divide between conservation and safety. Practical implications
include shifting from prescriptive compliance toward performance- and risk-based community-endorsed
decisions, enabling resilient outcomes that are both authentic and safe. Future CGT-based fieldwork in Bandar
Hilir is recommended to validate the framework, test wireless technologies, and expand incident and near-miss
repositories.
Keywords: Fire Safety Awareness; Risk Assessment Frameworks; Performance-Based Equivalency.Wireless
Detection Technologies.
INTRODUCTION
Fires in historic buildings around the world have emerged as one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
These incidents often stem from highly combustible building fabrics, outdated electrical systems, and the
complexity of renovation works. As García-Castillo et al. (2023) point out, the loss of heritage value due to fire
is frequently linked to the absence of contextual risk assessments and the inadequacy of rigid prescriptive
standards that fail to account for historic typologies.
In this light, fire safety cannot be treated as a separate concern from heritage preservation; it must be carefully
integrated into the design and daily operation of historic sites. The UNESCO Fire Risk Management Guide
(2024) lays out principles, methods, and processes for managing fire risk in heritage contexts, emphasizing a
continuous cycle of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (Harun et al., 2022; Mallinis et al., 2016;
Naziris et al., 2022; Othuman Mydin et al., 2014a, 2014c).
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 209
www.rsisinternational.org
One of the central dilemmas is the tension between preserving physical authenticity and installing modern fire
safety systems. Furmanek (2024) highlights that requirements for detection and suppression systems can alter
architectural values, making context-sensitive and performance-equivalent solutions essential. Along similar
lines, NFPA 914 provides a performance- and objective-based framework that allows for equivalencies when
prescriptive compliance is impractical, ensuring safety without undermining heritage integrity. On the ground,
Charlie Harris (2021) stresses the importance of salvage planning, staff training, and iterative risk assessments
to safeguard historic fabric while maintaining acceptable safety levels (Charlie Harris, 2021; Furmanek, 2024;
National Fire Protection Association, 2023).
Recent years have seen significant advances in risk assessment methods: from sensitivity-based markers (Salazar
et al., 2021), to resilience indices (Yu et al., 2024), dynamic assessments of dense historic villages (Liao et al.,
2024), and comprehensive value-at-risk frameworks (Ding et al., 2023). At the asset scale, performance-based
approaches have been applied to iconic landmarks such as the Duomo Modena (Petrini et al., 2023). At the
portfolio scale, methods like AHP have been used to prioritize diverse historic sites, weighing topographical and
access constraints against the trade-off between authenticity and intervention effectiveness (Kee et al., 2025).
Collectively, these studies underscore the shift toward risk-informed decision-making that incorporates physical,
managerial, and social dimensions (Ding et al., 2023; Kee et al., 2025; Liao et al., 2024; Petrini et al., 2023;
Salazar et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2024).
Despite the flexibility offered by UNESCO/ICOMOS guidance and NFPA 914, real-world implementation is
often constrained by operational challenges (such as hot works, housekeeping, and maintenance), financial
limitations, and community resistance to measures perceived as “disrupting authenticity” (Charlie Harris, 2021;
Kincaid, 2022). Moreover, social dimensions—including visitor behavior, spatial patterns, and local customs—
shape risk profiles but are rarely embedded in intervention design (Liao et al., 2024; Roslan & Said, 2017).
This highlights the need for a Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) synthesis to explore how heritage
communities themselves construct meanings of “safe” and “authentic.” Such an approach can help chart socially
accepted, technically effective, and operationally feasible practices—particularly in heritage cities like Bandar
Hilir, Melaka (Charlie Harris, 2021; ICOMOS & ICCROM, 2024; Kincaid, 2022; UNESCO, 2024).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Relevant literature should be reviewed to identify research gaps and situate the current study in relation to prior
research. This review was designed as a systematic search combined with a narrative and thematic synthesis,
reported in line with PRISMA 2020 to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The approach allowed us to
document the entire search cycle—from record identification through to reasons for full-text exclusion—while
integrating evidence from multiple study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) alongside
authoritative guidance documents. The overall analytical framework was guided by Constructivist Grounded
Theory (CGT), focusing on how meanings of “safety” and “authenticity” are socially constructed within heritage
communities, and how these meanings influence the acceptance of fire safety interventions.
Literature searches were conducted across major academic databases—Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect
(Elsevier), Taylor & Francis Online, Springer/Nature, MDPI, and ASCE Library—as well as Google Scholar to
capture “in press” or “early view” articles. For best practices and guidance documents, we carried out targeted
searches of authoritative agency and standards websites including UNESCO, ICOMOS/ICCROM, NFPA,
Historic England, and the London Fire Brigade. The search strategy was developed iteratively, using Boolean
operators and synonym mapping, for example: “heritage building” OR “historic building” AND “fire safety” OR
“fire risk” AND (awareness OR preparedness OR “risk management” OR “performance-based”) AND
(conservation OR preservation OR “cultural heritage”). The time frame was limited to 2020–2025 to ensure
currency, with English and Malay set as the language filters. Beyond database searches, we also conducted hand-
searching of target journals, backward and forward citation tracking (snowballing), and reference list checks
from included articles to avoid missing relevant work.
Inclusion criteria covered peer-reviewed journal articles or official guidance documents that explicitly addressed
heritage buildings/sites and fire safety issues, and contributed to the integration of conservation and safety (e.g.,
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 210
www.rsisinternational.org
risk assessment, heritage-sensitive technologies, governance, training/awareness). Eligible publications had to
fall within 2020–2025 and provide sufficient methodological detail or results. Excluded were works focusing
only on modern industrial fires without heritage context, opinion pieces without methodological grounding, and
duplicate records. All records were exported, deduplicated, and screened in two stages: title–abstract screening
followed by full-text review. Each stage was independently handled by two reviewers, with disagreements
resolved by consensus and, if needed, by a third reviewer. Reasons for exclusion were systematically logged,
and a PRISMA flow diagram was included as an appendix.
Data extraction followed a standardized, pilot-tested form. For each study or document, we extracted metadata
(author, year, context/country, type of evidence), study aims and design, risk domains (structural/physical,
technological, human/behavioral, governance/policy, spatial/environmental), assessment methods (e.g., AHP,
CRITIC, value-at-risk, performance-based), interventions/technologies (e.g., wireless alarms, linear detection
systems), key findings, implications for integrating conservation and safety, and any relevance to
Malaysia/Melaka. Two researchers extracted data independently and cross-checked for consistency, resolving
discrepancies by discussion.
Quality appraisal was tailored to study design. For authoritative guidance and “grey literature” (e.g., UNESCO,
ICOMOS, NFPA, Historic England, LFB), the AACODS framework (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage,
Objectivity, Date, Significance) was applied. All appraisals were conducted independently by two reviewers,
with inter-rater agreement (e.g., Cohen’s κ) calculated and reported to demonstrate reliability. These assessments
were explicitly factored into sensitivity analyses and the weighting of arguments within the synthesis.
For qualitative synthesis, we applied GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in thematic findings. Each theme
was evaluated against four criteria—methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy of data, and relevance.
Evidence profiles and summary of findings tables were produced, enabling readers to gauge the confidence level
behind thematic conclusions, especially when drawing from heterogeneous or cross-contextual sources.
Synthesis combined narrative and thematic approaches. Operationally, we followed ESRC guidance (Popay et
al., 2006) to organize the evidence into conceptual clusters (structural/physical risk, heritage-sensitive
technologies, human behavior and training, governance and policy, and spatial/environmental dimensions), and
then built a “line of argument” across studies. To develop cross-study themes, we employed thematic synthesis
procedures (Thomas & Harden, 2008) alongside Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis—
familiarization, coding, theme development, review, naming/defining, and reporting. Guided by CGT (Charmaz,
2014), we allowed heritage community voices—custodians, owners, and visitors—to shape themes that emerged
organically from the data. These themes were then re-mapped onto local realities (such as Bandar Hilir, Melaka)
to test whether proposed interventions were truly appropriate and socially acceptable.
Data management and audit trails were maintained through structured spreadsheets for search, screening, and
appraisal records, while thematic coding was supported by qualitative analysis software (e.g., NVivo, ATLAS.ti)
to facilitate cross-checking between reviewers. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken: (i) testing the stability
of themes when lower-quality studies were excluded; (ii) examining geographic bias (overrepresentation of
certain regions); and (iii) considering potential dissemination bias, particularly in qualitative findings and
practice documents.
No human participants were involved in this review, so formal ethics approval was not required. The protocol
(keywords, date ranges, inclusion/exclusion criteria, reviewer consensus procedures, and analysis plan) was
documented internally to ensure reproducibility.
We acknowledge several methodological limitations: evidence heterogeneity constrained formal quantification;
reliance on “grey literature” demanded rigorous AACODS appraisal; language bias (English/Malay) may have
excluded relevant sources; and local empirical evidence remains limited. Therefore, we recommend follow-up
fieldwork informed by CGT—for example, in-depth interviews and theoretical sampling—to deepen
understanding of how local heritage communities construct meanings of “safe” and “authentic,” and how these
meanings shape both acceptance and effectiveness of fire safety interventions.
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 211
www.rsisinternational.org
METHOD
Physical/Structural Risks and Performance-Based Approaches
Recent literature shows that fire risk profiles in heritage buildings are largely shaped by combustible fabrics
(such as aged timber and organic finishes), the presence of hollow spaces and concealed voids, the absence of
fire compartmentation, and renovation or upgrading works that involve heat sources (“hot works”). A
comprehensive review by García-Castillo et al. (2023) emphasizes that the amount of fuel load, flammability,
and potential fire spread are the primary vectors of risk, while construction or conservation activities often serve
as the trigger for fire incidents at heritage sites.
In relation to welding and cutting, Charlie Harris (2021) strongly advises complete avoidance unless
unavoidable, noting that many major fires in historic buildings have been sparked by welding, cutting, or open
flame works. This warning is echoed across technical advisory portals. High-profile cases—such as the Notre-
Dame fire in Paris and the Copenhagen Stock Exchange fire—have also been widely reported in the media,
underscoring persistent gaps in early detection and hot-work controls during restoration projects (Torero, 2019).
In response to these challenges, performance-based approaches have gained traction for their ability to balance
safety with the preservation of historic fabric. A case study of Modena’s Duomo Cathedral demonstrated the
feasibility of combining event-tree analysis, thermo-aerodynamic modeling, and nonlinear thermo-mechanical
structural analysis to evaluate the probabilistic fire resistance of a heritage structure (Petrini et al., 2023). At the
standards level, NFPA 914 provides the basis for equivalency—allowing performance-based solutions when
modern prescriptive clauses are unsuitable, without compromising either safety or authenticity (National Fire
Protection Association, 2023). Operational guidelines, such as London Fire Brigade’s GN80, add tactical
dimensions: focused risk assessments, artifact protection and salvage, and early coordination with heritage
stakeholders (Daly, 2019).
Additionally, data-driven predictive methods are being applied to high-risk fabric typologies such as timber.
Zhang et al. (2022) proposed a machine-learning-driven risk index for predicting fire hazards in wooden heritage
buildings, offering proactive decision support at a portfolio scale.
Vulnerability and Resilience Indices
Recent work has expanded the use of indicator sets that capture physical, operational, social, and environmental
factors, making risk assessments more transparent and comparable. Ding et al. (2023) developed a four-domain
evaluation system (human factors, facilities, environment, and social governance) with 20 sub-indicators for
stone-and-wood vernacular dwellings. Their findings highlight that non-technical variables—such as social
management—can be just as significant as physical factors.
Building on this, Yu et al. (2024) introduced a fire resilience index for ancient architectural complexes, using 25
indicators weighted through AHP and CRITIC methods. This approach enabled more objective prioritization of
interventions across multi-asset sites. At the settlement scale, Liao et al. (2024) proposed a dynamic method
tailored for dense historic villages, demonstrating that building spacing, density, and local customs significantly
shape fire risk—demanding strategies that are deeply context-specific.
Salazar et al. (2021) further contributed a 21-indicator index spanning four categories—structure,
utilities/services, firefighting capacity, and preparedness—strengthening the justification for allocating
mitigation budgets.
In practice, these indicator frameworks align closely with global guidance. UNESCO’s Fire Risk Management
Guide (2024) lays out principles, methodologies, and processes across prevention, mitigation, response, and
recovery—explicitly incorporating community knowledge. Similarly, ICOMOS and ICCROM (2024) launched
an open-access platform to share this guidance. Together, these resources underscore the need for holistic, risk-
informed approaches that move beyond narrow prescriptive codes, ensuring that indicators are tailored to the
real needs of heritage sites.
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 212
www.rsisinternational.org
Area Resilience and Human Behavior
A growing body of research highlights that spatial configuration and user behavior (residents and visitors alike)
strongly shape actual fire risk outcomes. Liao et al. (2024) demonstrated that visitor flow, spatial geometry, and
exit networks directly influence fire resilience in historic urban areas, underscoring the need for operational
design measures—such as tailored crowd management—based on real patterns of site use. In more challenging
topography, such as hilly heritage landscapes, Kee et al. (2025) applied AHP across 36 historic buildings and
found that geographic and environmental clusters affected access to safety infrastructure. Their findings also
reveal the persistent tension between “authenticity” and modern interventions, a balance that must be openly
negotiated with heritage stakeholders.
Operational practices and on-site work culture are equally critical. Charlie Harris (2021) identified welding and
cutting as a frequent cause of heritage fires, recommending strict avoidance; if such work is unavoidable,
rigorous permitting, close supervision, and continuous monitoring are essential. Complementing this, London
Fire Brigade’s GN80 guidelines (Daly, 2019) stress staff training, artifact salvage planning, and early
coordination with both fire services and heritage authorities, especially when conservation activities involve
added risks. Kincaid (2022) further distinguishes between prevention (eliminating ignition sources through
finishing works, electrical control, or welding management) and protection (minimizing impact through early
detection, response, and compartmentation) as the two practical pillars of heritage fire strategy.
Recent fire incidents reinforce the central role of human and operational factors. In several cases, blazes in
heritage buildings were traced to electrical short circuits from cleaning equipment—highlighting the risks posed
by “modern appliances” stored or operated within historic spaces without adequate protocols. This points to the
importance of asset management discipline, safe circulation routes, and dedicated storage zones as resilience
measures. At the same time, technical advisory resources (Charlie Harris, 2021) stress that fire emergency
planning and management must be embedded as an ongoing “living practice” within heritage buildings—rather
than treated as one-off interventions.
Synthesis of Key Insights
Looking across the three thematic clusters, several consistent patterns emerge:
1. physical and structural risks—particularly during restoration works—require performance-based solutions
that can demonstrate equivalency.
2. indicator frameworks and resilience indices enable transparent prioritization of interventions across
technical, social, and governance factors; and
3. true resilience depends on spatial management, human behavior, training, and the discipline of daily
operations.
The conceptual framework of this article—rooted in Constructivist Grounded Theory—acknowledges that
acceptance of technical interventions is shaped by how heritage communities themselves construct meanings of
“authentic” and “safe.” In this light, the synergy between global guidance (ICOMOS & ICCROM, 2024;
UNESCO, 2024), equivalency standards (National Fire Protection Association, 2023), and practical advice
(Charlie Harris, 2021) provides a foundation for adapting interventions to local contexts such as Bandar Hilir,
Melaka, without undermining the very heritage values they are meant to protect.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Challenges Of Integration
Integrating heritage preservation with fire safety requires a careful balance between maintaining the authenticity
of historic fabric and achieving acceptable levels of safety. In many cases, combustible materials, concealed
voids, the absence of compartmentation, and intrusive renovation works create a high-risk profile. As a result,
control measures must be adapted to remain effective without compromising architectural values. Performance-
based approaches are increasingly prominent because they allow objective comparison of intervention options
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 213
www.rsisinternational.org
and demonstrate safety equivalency without imposing prescriptive solutions that would damage historic fabric.
For example, the case of the Duomo in Modena illustrates how thermo-aerodynamic modeling and nonlinear
thermo-mechanical analysis can provide transparent technical justification for alternative solutions (Petrini et
al., 2023).
From the standards perspective, challenges arise when modern prescriptive codes (e.g., exit width requirements,
compartmentation, or conventional sprinklers) are impractical in older typologies. Here, NFPA 914 provides a
foundation for objective and performance-based equivalencies, while operational guidance, such as that of
Charlie Harris (2021), emphasizes flexibility supported by rigorous risk assessment and technical
documentation. In practice, strong “equivalency case files” typically combine fire scenario analysis, conservation
rationale, and post-installation monitoring plans to help regulators evaluate proposals comprehensively (Charlie
Harris, 2021; NFPA, 2023).
Cost and capacity are another layer of challenge. Heritage-sensitive retrofits and maintenance are often more
expensive, and their benefits are difficult to quantify through prescriptive measures alone. Value-at-Risk (VaR)
frameworks offer a way to match costs and benefits, prioritizing interventions that deliver the greatest risk
reduction at the lowest cost. Weighted resilience indices (AHP/CRITIC) further enable transparent prioritization
across physical, managerial, and social factors. This supports phased implementation, beginning with “quick
wins” such as early detection, housekeeping, and hot-work controls before moving to costlier structural
interventions (Ding et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2024).
Operational and behavioral dimensions are just as critical as technical ones. Many fires in heritage sites have
stemmed from welding and cutting, electrical faults, storage of flammable materials, or poor maintenance.
Professional guidance clearly distinguishes between prevention (eliminating ignition sources through work
permits, electrical control, and housekeeping discipline) and protection (minimizing impact through early
detection, operational response, and artifact salvage planning). Both Historic England and the London Fire
Brigade stress routine training, post-hot-work fire watch, and tested salvage plans as part of the daily operational
discipline in historic buildings (Charlie Harris, 2021; Kincaid, 2022; Torero, 2019).
Governance and coordination challenges are also significant. Heritage site management often spans multiple
agencies—museums, fire brigades, local authorities, and building owners. Urban-scale governance frameworks
for immovable heritage assets call for integrated data, operations, and response coordination, while UNESCO
and ICOMOS guidelines emphasize a continuous prevention–preparedness–response–recovery cycle tailored for
heritage sites (ICOMOS & ICCROM, 2024; UNESCO, 2024; Zhang et al., 2025).
Spatial and access constraints—narrow streets, winding passages, closely packed buildings, or steep terrain—
demand site-specific pre-incident planning (hydrant points, emergency routes, visitor pathways). Recent
evidence shows that location-based AHP and dynamic assessments for dense settlements can identify weak
points in terms of fire engine access, crowding, or building spacing (Arborea et al., 2014; Othuman Mydin et al.,
2014b).
Another challenge lies in data and monitoring gaps. Fire incident and near-miss statistics for heritage premises
are often fragmented across owners, contractors, and agencies, making systematic information sharing difficult.
Digital risk-informed tools for museums and heritage sites now offer ways to conduct regular risk assessments,
build shared incident repositories, and track intervention effectiveness over time—facilitating cross-site
comparisons at regional scale (Bratasz & Berger, 2024).
Taken together, these findings underscore the Constructivist Grounded Theory insight that community
acceptance of “heritage-friendly” interventions—such as visually unobtrusive wireless detectors—depends on
socially constructed meanings of “authentic” and “safe.” Thus, negotiation of meaning through stakeholder
engagement, risk analysis, and prototype demonstrations must be viewed as a core part of the solution, rather
than a secondary complement to technical measures (Ja’dúa’dová et al., 2025; UNESCO, 2024).
Global Best Practices
International best practices for heritage buildings rest on three key pillars: risk-based governance frameworks,
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 214
www.rsisinternational.org
flexible engineering standards, and strong operational discipline with preparedness.
At the governance level, UNESCO’s latest guidance details the full risk management cycle—prevention,
preparedness, response, and recovery—while emphasizing the integration of community and Indigenous
knowledge alongside technical assessment. This provides a common language for heritage custodians, building
owners, fire services, and local authorities to plan site-specific actions. Complementing this, ICOMOS–
ICCROM (2024) expand the focus beyond pre-incident mitigation to include resilient recovery after disasters,
ensuring continuity in heritage protection (ICOMOS & ICCROM, 2024; UNESCO, 2024).
At the standards level, NFPA 914 is recognized globally for enabling objective and performance-based solutions
in heritage contexts where modern prescriptive codes cannot be met, if equivalent safety can be demonstrated.
This flexibility supports sensitive design—such as minimizing cabling or embedding hidden systems—while
requiring transparent equivalency documentation (fire scenario analysis, conservation rationale, monitoring
plans). In the UK, Historic England applies similar principles through its fire advice hub, emphasizing evidence-
based flexibility and robust emergency planning (Charlie Harris, 2021; NFPA, 2023).
For risk prioritization and asset profiling, best practices now rely on transparent quantitative tools such as
AHP/CRITIC for indicator weighting and Value-at-Risk (VaR) for cost–benefit alignment. An AHP-based study
of 36 hilltop heritage buildings showed how interventions can be prioritized without sacrificing authenticity.
Likewise, a VaR framework with six first level and 42 second-level indicators enabled owners to trace investment
decisions against measurable mitigation outcomes (Ding et al., 2023; Kee et al., 2025). Meanwhile, recent fire
sensitivity/damage indices have refined 21–25 indicators across physical, operational, social, and environmental
domains, allowing comparison across sites (Salazar et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2024).
On the engineering and technology side, best practices prioritize heritage-friendly systems: wireless alarms and
detectors (to minimize invasive works), linear detection for long corridors, and integrated monitoring that does
not compromise historic fabric. A case study of a museum castle in Slovakia demonstrated the effectiveness of
wireless configurations as a compromise between safety and conservation. Operational guidance from the
London Fire Brigade (LFB) further highlights the importance of artifact salvage planning and tailored
smoke/water control methods suited to heritage environments (Ja’dúa’dová et al., 2025; LFB, 2020).
Operational discipline remains the backbone of daily best practice: strict hot-work permit systems, post-work
fire watches, housekeeping audits, rigorous electrical maintenance, regular training, and pre-incident planning
jointly developed with local fire brigades. Historic England emphasizes the importance of tested Emergency
Response and Salvage Plans, while LFB’s GN80 guidance provides tactical direction for heritage premises,
including collection protection and operational coordination during incidents (Charlie Harris, 2021; Daly, 2019).
Best practices also extend to the urban scale. Narrow street morphology, winding pathways, and tightly packed
buildings demand tailored strategies for fire engine access, water supply points, and visitor routes. Evidence
shows that dynamic modeling for dense heritage villages, combined with AHP-based profiling in hilltop areas,
helps to design realistic infrastructure and response strategies. When coupled with city-level governance
frameworks for immovable heritage assets, this creates continuity across policy, design, and operations (Kee et
al., 2025; Liao et al., 2024).
Across all these layers, community involvement as co-design partners—aligned with Constructivist Grounded
Theory—emerges as a best practice. It ensures acceptance of “invisible” yet effective interventions, bridging the
gap between community meanings of “authentic” and “safe” (UNESCO, 2024).
Key best practices directly applicable to Bandar Hilir, Melaka, include:
1. Using NFPA 914 with well-documented equivalency cases for complex conservation challenges.
2. Applying AHP/CRITIC/VaR to ensure phased investments deliver maximum risk reduction.
3. Adopting wireless/hidden systems and tested salvage plans.
4. Enforcing hot-work permits, routine training, and joint pre-incident planning with the Fire and Rescue
Department (JBPM).
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 215
www.rsisinternational.org
5. Establishing a heritage city governance committee guided by UNESCO–ICOMOS frameworks to sustain
the prevention–response–recovery cycle (Huang et al., 2024; Joo et al., 2009; Salleh & Wajdi Mohtar, 2020;
Shao & Shao, 2018).
CONCLUSION
This review highlights that the integration of heritage preservation and fire safety is not only a technical challenge
but also a socially negotiated process. Through the lens of Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), the meanings
of “authentic” and “safe” are understood as co-constructed by multiple stakeholders—owners, authorities,
communities, and emergency services (García-Castillo et al., 2023; UNESCO, 2024). Acceptance of
interventions therefore depends as much on cultural legitimacy as on technical justification.
Performance-based approaches provide the clearest pathway to resolving tensions between authenticity and
safety. Case studies such as the Duomo in Modena demonstrate how thermo-aerodynamic modeling and thermo-
mechanical analysis can justify equivalency without invasive prescriptive measures (Petrini et al., 2023). NFPA
914 operationalizes this principle globally, while Historic England embeds it in practice through emergency
planning and salvage protocols (NFPA, 2023; Charlie Harris, 2021). From a CGT perspective, “invisible”
interventions such as wireless detection gain acceptance when communicated through co-design and
demonstration, reinforcing their cultural as well as technical legitimacy.
Risk assessment methods have also matured. Weighted indices (AHP/CRITIC) and value-at-risk frameworks
(VaR) offer transparent prioritization across physical, managerial, and social dimensions (Ding et al., 2023; Yu
et al., 2024). In challenging contexts—such as dense settlements or hilltop clusters—these tools translate diverse
interpretations of risk into accountable matrices for decision-making (Kee et al., 2025). Likewise, operational
discipline remains a cornerstone: fires in heritage sites often arise from welding, poor maintenance, or faulty
equipment, underscoring the need to institutionalize prevention (e.g., hot-work permits, housekeeping) alongside
protection (early detection, salvage) as organizational rituals that sustain readiness (Kincaid, 2022; Charlie
Harris, 2021).
At the governance level, integration across agencies and urban scales is critical. UNESCO–ICOMOS
frameworks call for continuous prevention–preparedness–response–recovery cycles, but effectiveness depends
on shared definitions of acceptable risk and coordinated responsibilities (ICOMOS & ICCROM, 2024; Zhang et
al., 2025). Applying this to Bandar Hilir, Melaka, a multi-layered model is suggested: community engagement
to reconcile meanings, technical legitimacy through performance equivalency, risk-based prioritization of early
wins, embedding operational discipline, and city-level governance committees with auditable KPIs. While
evidence remains heterogeneous and incident data fragmented, CGT offers a way forward by grounding technical
frameworks in local narratives, enabling heritage–safety integration to move from “difficult compromise” to
“socially legitimized synergy.”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for
the financial support provided through the Short-Term Research Grant. Appreciation is also extended to the
Faculty of Technology Management and Technopreneurship (FPTT), UTeM, for their continuous support and
encouragement throughout this study.
REFERENCES
1. Arborea, A., Mossa, G. & Cucurachi, G. 2014. Preventive Fire Risk Assessment of Italian Architectural
Heritage: An Index Based Approach. Key Engineering Materials.
2. Bratasz, Ł. & Berger, Ł. 2024. Fire Risk Assessment in Museums on the HERIe Web-based Decision-
supporting Platform. Studies in Conservation 69(sup1): 12–17.
3. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
4. Charlie Harris. 2021. England’s Cultural Heritage still at risk 30 years on. International Fire
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 216
www.rsisinternational.org
Professional(35).
5. Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis.
2nd Ed. London: SAGE Publications.
6. Daly, D. 2019. Fire Safety Guidance Note 80 (GN80): Heritage Buildings of Special Interest.
7. Ding, L., Xu, Z. & Gernay, T. 2023. Holistic Value-at-Risk Assessment Framework for Fire in Cultural
Heritage Buildings. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
9(1).
8. Furmanek, A.F. 2024. Impact of the Fire Protection Requirements on the Cultural Heritage of the Polish
Old Towns—Selected Problems. Sustainability 17(1): 176.
9. García-Castillo, E., Payá-Zaforteza, I. & others. 2023. Fire in heritage and historic buildings, a major
challenge for the 21st century. Developments in the Built Environment.
10. Harun, G., Chorlton, B., Richter, F. & Gales, J. 2022. The Effects of Radial Cracks on the Fire
Performance of Heritage Timber. Fire and Materials.
11. Huang, L., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Lou, S., Chen, Y. & Jia, M. 2024. Application and Development of
Firefighting Technologies in Industrial Heritage: Experiences and Insights From Macau.
12. ICOMOS & ICCROM. 2024. Guidance for Post-Event Recovery and Reconstruction of Cultural
Heritage.
13. Ja\vdu\vdová, J., Osvaldová, L.M., Petho, P. & others. 2025. The Analysis of Fire Protection for
Selected Historical Castle Buildings in Slovakia. Sustainability 17(15): 6743.
14. Joo, J., Yim, J. & Lee, C. 2009. Protecting Cultural Heritage Tourism Sites with the Ubiquitous Sensor
Network. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
15. Kee, T., Yang, H., Zhou, Y. & others. 2025. An application of AHP{-}based fire vulnerability
assessment for 20th{-}century mountainous built heritage in Nan’an District, Chongqing. Heritage
Science.
16. Kincaid, S. 2022. Fire prevention in historic buildings - approaches for safe practice. HISTORIC
ENVIRONMENT-POLICY \& PRACTICE 13(3): 361–380.
17. Liao, D., Zhuo, X. & Tao, J. 2024. A dynamic fire risk assessment method for compact historic villages
based on the improved FRAME. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 100: 104935.
18. London Fire Brigade. 2020. Salvage plans — guidance and templates (Fire safety in heritage and
historical buildings).
19. Mallinis, G., Mitsopoulos, Ι., Beltran, E. & Goldammer, J.G. 2016. Assessing Wildfire Risk in Cultural
Heritage Properties Using High Spatial and Temporal Resolution Satellite Imagery and Spatially
Explicit Fire Simulations: The Case of Holy Mount Athos, Greece. Forests.
20. National Fire Protection Association. 2023. NFPA 914: Code for the Protection of Historic Structures.
21. Naziris, I.A., Mitropoulou, C.C. & Lagaros, N.D. 2022. Innovative Computational Techniques for
Multi-Criteria Decision Making, in the Context of Cultural Heritage Structures’ Fire Protection: Theory.
HERITAGE 5(3): 1719–1733.
22. Othuman Mydin, M.A., Agus Salim, N.A., Sani, N.M. & Khaw, Y.Y. 2014a. Evaluation of Imminent
Fire Hazards of Inheritance Ancestral Temple and Mansion in Georgetown, Penang. E3s Web of
Conferences.
23. Othuman Mydin, M.A., Arminda, W. & Sani, N.M. 2014b. Fire Risk Assessment of Adaptive Re-Use
of Historic Shop Houses for Sleeping Accommodations in Malaysia. Matec Web of Conferences.
24. Othuman Mydin, M.A., Sani, N.M., Abas, N.F. & Khaw, Y.Y. 2014c. Evaluation of Fire Hazard and
Safety Management of Heritage Buildings in Georgetown, Penang. Matec Web of Conferences.
25. Petrini, F., Ubertini, F., Borri, C. & others. 2023. Structural Fire Risk for Heritage Buildings by the
Performance{-}Based Engineering Format: The Case of the Duomo of Modena. International Journal
of Architectural Heritage.
26. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K. & Duffy,
S. 2006. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the
ESRC Methods Programme.
27. Roslan, R. & Said, S.Y. 2017. Fire Safety Management System for Heritage Buildings in Malaysia.
ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOUR PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL 2(6): 221–226.
28. Salazar, L.G.F., Romao, X. & Pauperio, E. 2021. Review of vulnerability indicators for fire risk
assessment in cultural heritage. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
ICTMT 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXVIII November 2025
Page 217
www.rsisinternational.org
60.
29. Salleh, N.H. & Wajdi Mohtar, M.A. 2020. Active Fire Safety Measures in the Heritage Timber
Buildings in Malaysia. Planning Malaysia.
30. Shao, P.-C. & Shao, C.-H. 2018. Fire-Resistant Characteristics of Traditional Buildings in Urban
Historic Districts. E3s Web of Conferences.
31. Thomas, J. & Harden, A. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8: 45.
32. Torero, J.L. 2019. Fire Safety of Historical Buildings: Principles and Methodological Approach.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 13(7, SI): 926–940.
33. UNESCO. 2024. Fire Risk Management Guide: Protecting Cultural and Natural Heritage from Fire.
Paris: UNESCO.
34. Yu, S., Liu, H., Kang, Q., Cheng, J., Gong, Y. & Ke, Y. 2024. Research on the Fire Resilience
Assessment of Ancient Architectural Complexes Based on the AHP{-}CRITIC Method. Sustainability
16(18): 8022.
35. Zhang, F., Shi, L., Liu, S., Shi, J., Shi, C. & Xiang, T. 2022. CFD-Based Fire Risk Assessment and
Control at the Historic Dong Wind and Rain Bridges in the Western Hunan Region: The Case of Huilong
Bridge.
36. Zhang, M., Shu, X., Gao, H. & Shen, S. 2025. City-scale fire protection governance of immovable
cultural heritages: Evidence and lessons from Beijing. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction:
105479.
