Promoting Domestic Fire-Safety: Virtual Drills as a Training Tool for Citizens

Abstract

Promoting domestic fire safety is crucial for preventing and effectively managing risky situations. This study evaluated the effectiveness of virtual environments (VEs) in fire drills to improve citizens’ knowledge and safe behavior in domestic settings. Conducted at the Citizen School for Risk Prevention (CSRP) in Zaragoza (Spain), the experiment involved 20 participants facing a simulated kitchen fire using a combination of physical and virtual extinguishing equipment. A theoretical session accompanied the drills to reinforce learning. Participants were divided into two groups: one completed the drill before and after the theoretical session, while the other completed it only afterward. Performance was assessed based on the ability to extinguish, control, or lose control of the fire. Surveys administered before, immediately after, and three months after training measured knowledge retention and behavioral changes. The results indicate a significant improvement in fire safety awareness and lasting adoption of safe practices. Participants also emerged as safety advocates. This study highlights the potential of combining theoretical instruction with immersive practical training and identifies strategies for replicating this approach in other prevention schools.

1. Introduction

Domestic safety is a fundamental pillar for ensuring the protection, well-being, and quality of life of citizens within their everyday environments. Although home environments are typically perceived as safe spaces, data consistently reveal a significant proportion of accidents, injuries, and emergencies occurring in domestic settings, many of which are preventable through appropriate education and risk mitigation strategies [1,2]. In recent decades, rapid technological, structural, and energy-related advances have been made in housing infrastructure. Although these improvements have enhanced comfort and convenience in domestic life, they have also introduced new safety challenges that require timely and effective interventions. This involves training professionals in emerging fields [3] and developing new regulations and certifications [4]. Moreover, external factors such as the increased prevalence of remote work and lifestyle changes imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have led to higher occupancy of homes throughout the day, raising the potential risk of domestic incidents [5], including fire-related emergencies [6].

In this context, educating citizens about domestic safety and emergency preparedness has become a social and public health priority. Conventional awareness campaigns and safety guidelines, although necessary, often fail to engage citizens effectively or instill lasting behavioral change. Consequently, there is growing interest in exploring innovative educational tools capable of enhancing risk perception, decision-making, and practical responses in emergency situations. Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of digital resources such as online training [7], virtual reality (VR) applications [8,9,10,11], mixed reality platforms [12], structured drills [13], team role-playing [14], and interactive digital guides [15]. Among these, simulation-based learning and learning-by-doing approaches have shown promise in increasing user engagement and consolidating knowledge retention over time [16]. For example, immersive VR serious games have been developed to enhance earthquake behavioral responses and post-earthquake evacuation preparedness in buildings, demonstrating significant improvements in participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy [17]. Additionally, a theoretical foundation is essential to achieve this goal, as it provides users with increased safety when making decisions in risky situations [18].

Recently, immersive learning environments and virtual drills have gained attention in the safety education field for their capacity to realistically replicate emergency scenarios without exposing participants to actual danger [19]. Virtual environments (VEs) enable experiential learning opportunities in which users can rehearse appropriate actions in response to simulated hazards [20]. While VR technologies that require head-mounted displays offer high levels of immersion, the accessibility of simpler VEs using screens and projectors presents a cost-effective alternative for public education initiatives [21]. This flexibility makes VEs particularly valuable for large-scale citizen training programs, such as those organized by municipal safety services and civil protection authorities. Furthermore, research on user behavior in multisensory virtual environments for fire evacuation has revealed that adding thermal and olfactory cues influences participants’ perceived urgency and evacuation behavior, suggesting benefits for training realism [22].

Despite the well-established utility of immersive virtual drills in fields such as construction, occupational safety, and emergency services training [23,24], research specifically addressing their application for domestic fire safety education among the public remains scarce. A ‘domestic fire’ is an unintentional or accidental outbreak of fire that occurs within a residential property or its immediate surroundings. These incidents typically result from common household hazards, including cooking equipment, electrical faults, heating devices, and human negligence, and can pose significant risks to life, property, and public safety. Recent studies have provided evidence of the benefits of simulation-based approaches for fire safety instruction, demonstrating improvements in decision-making speed during emergencies [25] and significant gains in knowledge retention and user confidence [26]. Other investigations have emphasized the pedagogical value of these immersive tools, noting their capacity to engage a wide range of participants and adapt to various domestic risk scenarios [27]. For instance, VR-based safety training for industrial hazards has shown high user satisfaction and increased confidence in emergency response skills, indicating the effectiveness of VR in safety training [28]. Collectively, these findings suggest the considerable potential for extending simulation-driven training methodologies to domestic environments to strengthen public fire risk prevention efforts.

This study aims to contribute to this emerging field by analyzing the effectiveness of a citizen training session conducted at the “Escuela Ciudadana de Prevención de Riesgos” or Citizen School for Risk Prevention (CSRP) in Zaragoza, Spain—the country’s first institution dedicated exclusively to public risk prevention education [29]. The program combined a theoretical session on domestic fire prevention with a virtual drill simulating a residential fire incident using conventional display technology to replicate an immersive, decision-based scenario. The primary objective of this paper is to assess the perceived usefulness of the training by citizens, evaluate knowledge acquisition immediately after the session and three months later, and examine the durability of the acquired knowledge over time. Furthermore, this study investigates whether participants have transformed from passive learners into active safety advocates within their personal networks.

The main outcome is a set of guidelines based on the experience of the CSRP in Zaragoza for developing further activities in other prevention schools. Through a controlled learning session, the strengths and limitations of combining a theoretical class with practical applications in a VE were identified. Additionally, participants completed a survey to assess knowledge retention at three different times during the experiment: before the training session, immediately after, and three months later, similar to how it has been carried out in other studies with the same objective [30,31,32]. This provided insight into their prior knowledge of domestic safety and prevention, how effective the session was after its completion, and whether the acquired knowledge was durable over three months. Furthermore, it was assessed whether the session had an indirect positive impact in terms of transforming participants from passive learners to safety promoters, disseminating their knowledge with others in their environment.

2. Materials and Methods

To address the objectives of this study, a structured methodological framework comprising three interrelated components was designed. First, an experimental training session was conducted at the CSRP, involving both theoretical instruction and practical application through virtual domestic fire simulation. Second, systematic observation and data collection were carried out throughout the development of the training, with particular emphasis on participants’ performance, behavioral responses, and interaction with the virtual environment. Third, a longitudinal assessment strategy was implemented by administering structured surveys to the participants at three distinct points in time: prior to the training session (baseline), immediately after the session (post-intervention), and three months after participation (follow-up). This multi-phase evaluation was designed to measure immediate knowledge acquisition, short-term behavioral intentions, and the durability of acquired knowledge and skills over an extended period. Together, these components enabled a comprehensive analysis of the training’s effectiveness, providing both quantitative and qualitative insights into its impact on domestic fire safety awareness and practices among citizens [32,33].

2.1. Scenario

The training was conducted at the CSRP in Zaragoza, inaugurated in 2021, and developed as an extension of the Fire Museum [34]. Both are situated in the same building, which is annexed to the Zaragoza Fire Station No. 2. This center offers training experiences for citizens to promote knowledge of prevention and emergency management, mainly in domestic environments. The goal was for participants to learn how to deal with different risky situations practically.

The current experience offered by the CSRP is aimed at groups of 5 to 10 participants and lasts approximately two hours: the first one is dedicated to a theoretical session, full of domestic examples, and the second one is based on a series of immersive experiences. The second part comprised three participatory workshops based on (i) a virtual fire-extinction environment, (ii) simulation of a domestic fire (using safe smoke, flame-like lights, and relatively high temperatures), and (iii) real fire extinction with CO₂ extinguishers. Thus, attendees first go through theoretical training in a classroom, where classes are based on games and experiences explained by firefighters. The concepts described start with the identification of domestic risks, paying special attention to fires, from how to avoid them to how to effectively detect them and use extinguishing equipment in the early stages. After this initial lecture, participants move on to the practical session, where they apply the concepts they have previously learned.

The CSRP aims to achieve the following objectives among citizens:

• Understanding the basic theoretical concepts of different emergencies (fires, electrical accidents, etc.);
• Learning the techniques for handling the most common extinguishing elements, both active and passive;
• Acquiring personal skills and preparation, gaining confidence, and learning to coordinate in emergency situations.
• Making decisions quickly and safely in stressful situations.

2.2. Participants

The participant group consisted of students from the Master’s Degree in Occupational Risk Prevention at the University of Zaragoza [35]. These students have profiles related to health and safety at work, but not directly related to the domestic sphere. The decision to conduct the experiment using this participant profile was made based on the advice of the CSRP. Based on their experience, common citizens typically possess no knowledge of domestic fire safety and are prone to providing random responses. Given that the study included a pre-session survey, it was considered appropriate to select a participant profile with a stronger theoretical foundation but without practical experience—effectively mirroring the characteristics of an average citizen in terms of practical preparedness. Furthermore, it was reasoned that if participants with a specialized academic background were not fully capable of accurately answering the survey questions, this knowledge gap would be even more pronounced in the general population.

The age range of the group members was between 22 and 54 years, with 75% of the participants aged between 22 and 31 years. Additionally, 60% were female and 40% were male. All participants were Spanish speakers; therefore, the experiment and survey were conducted in this language.

Twenty-one participants were recruited for the first phase of the study. Considering similar previous research employing multi-phase methods to assess knowledge retention over time [31], an expected attrition rate of approximately 25% between the first and third survey phases was anticipated. During Phase 2, conducted alongside the training session, one participant was unable to finish this session, leading to the invalidation of their survey and the exclusion of the collected data. The first survey phase recorded 21 responses, the second phase 20 responses (following the removal of the invalid entry), and the third phase 14 responses, representing a 30% attrition rate.

Regarding the composition, the participants were divided into two groups for the session: Group 1 with eight participants and Group 2 with 12 participants. This difference in the number of participants was due to external factors caused by the lateness of two participants and the impossibility of another participant to finish the session.

2.3. Experiment

The training session was conducted simultaneously in two groups: one with eight participants and the other with 12. The first group performed the experiment directly, followed by theoretical training, and then repeated the experiment later so that the results could be compared after the knowledge was acquired from the theoretical training. The second group first experienced theoretical training and then a practical experiment. The goal was to observe how the first group faced a dangerous situation without having previously received any training. Additionally, the experiment included three surveys (before, immediately after, and three months later) to evaluate the knowledge acquired by the participants and its durability (Figure 1).

The experiment involved extinguishing a domestic fire simulated in a VE based on a wall projection and a fire hose reel (FHR), developed by Nabegos and the CSRP (both from Zaragoza, Spain). The simulated scene was projected in front of the participant, attempting to be as immersive as possible, allowing anyone in the room to visualize it. The virtual environment system currently at the CSRP includes three different scenarios: a kitchen, a dining room, and a print workshop. Although this latter scenario does not represent a domestic environment, it involves a complex workplace setting with flammable chemicals, which the CSRP employs to illustrate a more challenging and hazardous situation. The kitchen was used for this experiment, as it is one of the household areas most likely to experience a domestic fire. Additionally, it featured interesting details, such as a pan with oil, an electrical oven in flames, or upper furniture that made the fire spread quickly.

The equipment used was a simulated FHR, comparable in size and aspect to a real one, plus four tracking cameras, a G-sensor, and a proximity sensor, which were used to capture the movements. The experiment took place in a ~25 m² open room: ~506 cm long (the wall where the image was projected), ~559 cm wide, and ~261 cm high (Figure 2). The distance between the participant and the screen was ~250 cm, placing the participant in the middle of the room.

To assess whether the participants pass the test, the simulation offers one of its three final messages (Figure 3) at the end of the total time of the drill (two minutes). The first possible message is “Fire Extinguished!”, indicating that the participant remained calm and managed to control the fire completely before the maximum time elapsed. The second message is “Well Done!” This implies that the participant managed to prevent the fire from spreading until the time ran out but did not extinguish it completely. Finally, the third message is “Danger”, meaning that the fire spread, and the participant could not do anything about it: the scenario burned completely. These three levels are accompanied by explanatory messages reminding the user how to act after the result.

2.4. Survey

While the experiment allowed for observing how participants faced a dangerous situation, the survey was designed to analyze the impact of the experiment on them. Specifically, three factors were addressed through the survey: the participants’ knowledge before the session, the knowledge acquired after the session, and the durability of the knowledge after three months (

Table 1. Factors evaluated through the survey.

Factor	Objective	Method
Participant’s knowledge before the session	These data show which guidelines are most necessary and which prevention knowledge is correctly widespread among the population, as well as those most mistaken in an emergency.	Before the session, participants were asked to list the dangers they identify at home in their daily life. They also indicated whether they or someone they know has ever experienced a domestic dangerous situation. They were asked to cite their main sources of safety information to date.
Knowledge acquired after the session	This shows how effective the session was in acquiring new knowledge. It also observes how participants would face a risky situation before receiving theoretical knowledge to document common and repeated errors among them.	After the session, participants indicated which practical tool impacted them most in learning about prevention. They also described their personal experience and the feelings they had during the session, as well as their motivation regarding safety and prevention. This helped us understand if they will share their safety knowledge with people around them.
Durability of knowledge (three months after the session)	This part was considered essential for the study as it evaluated whether the knowledge acquired during the session remains over time, which is the main objective of the CSRP as it seeks citizens to act correctly in an emergency. These results can improve the learning of knowledge that is more difficult to remember over time.	Three months after the session, participants were assessed again to see if they had changed any habits in their daily lives that could pose a safety risk.

).

Each of the previously described moments had a strategic objective for this research. The three surveys had a common part that was repeated in all of them, seeking to compare knowledge at different key moments. Additionally, there is a final part that seeks more active responses from the participants and differs for each of them (as shown in the third column of Table 1). The common part of the three surveys was divided into two sets of questions: one about fire extinguishers and another about how to deal with fire. Each set contained five questions with four possible answers. The three questionnaires were administered online using the Google Forms platform.

Participants completed the surveys individually using their personal electronic devices during each phase. The first survey was conducted within 24 h prior to the session. Participants received an email explaining the purpose of the study, indicating that their participation was completely voluntary and altruistic, and that if they wanted to collaborate, they should answer the survey based only on their personal knowledge without consulting external sources. The second survey was administered immediately after the session in the presence of the researchers (Figure 1). Finally, a three-month follow-up survey was conducted during a subsequent activity of the master’s program, also under the supervision of the research team, at Fire Station No. 5 in Zaragoza. Given the 30% absence rate among participants for this activity (with only 14 of the 20 workshop attendees present), a general reminder email was sent to all participants. However, this follow-up did not result in an increase in responses, and the final number of completed surveys remained at 14 participants.

Regarding the validation of responses, it was verified that all surveys were completed within the designated dates and timeframes of each assessment phase. Additionally, one survey from a participant in Phase 2 was invalidated because the participant could not complete the training session.

3. Results

The main results of this research were obtained by observing the experiment’s development and the three surveys conducted with the participants. The following subsections present the results obtained for each group.

3.1. Results of the Experiment

The indicators that indicate whether users have successfully completed the drill with the VE are based on the three levels defined in Figure 3.

Table 2. Experimental results according to fire-extinction levels.

Group 1 (8 Participants), BEFORE the Theoretical Session
1. “Fire Extinguished”	25% (2/8)
2. “Well Done!”	50% (4/8)
3. “Danger”	25% (2/8)
Group 1 (8 Participants), AFTER the Theoretical Session
1. “Fire Extinguished”	100% (8/8)
2. “Well Done!”	0% (0/8)
3. “Danger”	0% (0/8)
Group 2 (12 Participants), AFTER the Theoretical Session
1. “Fire Extinguished”	33% (4/12)
2. “Well Done!”	25% (3/12)
3. “Danger”	42% (5/12)

shows the percentage of participants in each group who achieved each level.

3.2. Results of the Survey

The results of the two sets of questions regarding fire extinguishers (

Table 3. The survey results on the set of fire extinguishers (correct answers highlighted in grey).

Question	Options	Survey 1	Survey 2	Survey 3
1. The most important aspect for choosing a fire extinguisher is …	… size.	4.8%	10%	0%
	… color.	0%	0%	0%
	… content.	95.2%	80%	92.9%
	… hose.	0%	10%	7.1%
2. When using a fire extinguisher, we should point it at …	… the upper part of the flames.	9.5%	0%	7.1%
	…the base of the flames.	85.7%	100%	92.9%
	… the complete flames from top to bottom.	4.8%	0%	0%
	… the complete flames from bottom to top.	0%	0%	0%
3. The type of extinguisher we should never use on a burning pan is …	… powder extinguisher.	19%	0%	0%
	… CO2 extinguisher.	9.5%	0%	0%
	… water extinguisher.	71.4%	95%	78.6%
	… any extinguisher can be used.	0%	5%	21.4%
4. If I choose the wrong extinguisher, …	… I can extinguish the fire, adapting its use conditions.	0%	20%	0%
	… I can extinguish the fire, but it will take longer.	0%	0%	7.1%
	… I can extinguish the fire if I open the windows to ventilate well.	0%	0%	0%
	… the situation may aggravate, increasing the risk.	100%	80%	92.9%
5. How long does an extinguisher last if used continuously?	About 15 min	4.8%	0%	7.1%
	About 5 min	33.3%	0%	0%
	Almost 1 min	42.9%	15%	21.4%
	Less than half a minute	19%	85%	71.4%

) and how to deal with fire (

Table 4. The survey results in the set about how to deal with fire (correct answers highlighted in grey).

Question	Options	Survey 1	Survey 2	Survey 3
6. How do you differentiate a CO2 extinguisher?	Its hose has a narrow end	38.1%	10%	7.1%
	Its hose has a wide end	61.9%	90%	92.9%
	It is gray	0%	0%	0%
	It is red	0%	0%	0%
7. How do you extinguish a burning pan?	Pour a large amount of water and cover it	0%	0%	0%
	Pour a small amount of water and cover it	14.3%	0%	7.1%
	Pour a small amount of water and leave it uncovered	4.8%	0%	0%
	Without pouring any water and leaving it covered	81%	100%	92.9%
8. How does CO2 extinguish a fire?	Reacting with the H2 in air to produce H2O	14.3%	5%	14.3%
	Reacting with the O2 in the air to produce H2O	19%	15%	7.1%
	Reacting with the H2O in the air to produce more H2O	4.8%	5%	0%
	Displacing the comburent (O2) in the air	61.9%	75%	78.6%
9. We will use a CO2 extinguisher instead of a powder one because …	… a CO2 extinguisher is much cheaper and just as effective.	19%	0%	7.1%
	… a CO2 extinguisher automatically recharges, after use, with the CO2 in the air.	4.8%	0%	0%
	… the maintenance of a CO2 extinguisher can be done easily by the user.	19%	5%	7.1%
	… a powder extinguisher would worsen visibility.	57.1%	95%	85.7%
10. The sequence for using a CO2 extinguisher is …	… remove the plastic wrap from the nozzle, point it at the base of the flames, and activate it.	4.8%	10%	7.1%
	… screw the diffuser on the top, point it at the base of the flames, and activate it.	0%	0%	0%
	… pull out the metal ring, point it at the base of the flames, and activate it.	76.2%	90%	85.7%
	… press the pressurization mechanism, point it at the base of the flames, and activate it.	19%	0%	7.1%

) are shown below. For each case, the included questions, their different options, and the percentage result of each survey are shown: Survey 1, the one conducted before the experiment; Survey 2, after the session; and Survey 3, three months later. Additionally, for the correct answers, colors and arrows highlight whether the percentage of correct answers increased or decreased compared to the previous survey. This allows for the identification of points of improvement and possible errors in conducting the experiment and theoretical session.

Regarding the answers obtained, the sample size decreased in each survey, from 21 responses in the first to 20 in the second and 14 in the last. Although it would have been optimal to achieve the same participation in all of them, it was challenging to maintain all participants’ involvement three months after the training sessions.

In addition to the two sets of questions, other relevant aspects were asked at the end of each survey, varying in each of them (as shown in the third column of Table 1). These questions are not comparable between the three surveys, as they are not repeated, but they provide relevant information that can contribute to improving the training experience for citizens (

Table 5. Other questions of interest that were asked at the end of each survey.

Question	Options	Answers
Survey 1—Before the Training Session (21 Responses)
1. Do you know anyone who has experienced a serious domestic danger situation?	Yes, I have experienced it myself	19%
	Yes, a family member or a close friend	23.8%
	Yes, a neighbor or acquaintance	19%
	No, I do not know anyone	38.1%
2. How would you rate your current knowledge of prevention and domestic safety?	None	4.8%
	Low	42.9%
	Medium	47.6%
	High	4.8%
3. Until now, what have been your main sources of information on prevention and safety?	Internet	42.9%
	Master’s Degree in Prevention and work experience	52,3%
	Self-training	4,8%
	TV and advertising campaigns	0%
Survey 2—After the Training Session (20 Responses)
4. A theoretical presentation with examples and anecdotes is useful for learning basic safety concepts.	5—Strongly agree	85%
	4	10%
	3	0%
	2	5%
	1—Strongly disagree	0%
5. The virtual scenario is useful for learning how to handle a fire hose reel in a small domestic fire.	5—Strongly agree	85%
	4	0%
	3	15%
	2	0%
	1—Strongly disagree	0%
6. Had you previously received training with VR or simulated environments?	Yes	10%
	No	90%
Survey 3—Three Months After the Training Session (14 Responses)
7. Have you changed any habits in your daily life that could pose a safety risk?	Yes	78.6%
	No	21.4%
8. Who have you shared what you learned at the School with? (Several answers can be selected)	Friends	57.1%
	Family	78.6%
	Partner	57.1%
	Colleagues	7.1%
	Housemates	7.1%
9. Have you recommended your family and/or friends to take the training offered by the School?	Yes	85.7%
	No	14.3%

).

4. Discussion

The results of the practical test revealed a marked difference in performance between the two groups. Group 1, which engaged in a preliminary VE drill prior to receiving theoretical instruction, demonstrated a significantly higher success rate in extinguishing the simulated fire during their second attempt, following the theoretical session. In contrast, Group 2, which participated solely in theoretical training before completing the VE drill, achieved comparatively lower success rates. This suggests that a combination of experiential trial-and-error exposure followed by structured theoretical input offers a pedagogical advantage over theory-only approaches. Participants in Group 1 experienced the scenario firsthand, identified gaps in their knowledge and procedural errors during their initial attempt, and subsequently consolidated this practical insight through formal instruction. This iterative learning process enabled them to apply corrective actions and safety protocols more effectively in their second engagement with the VE simulation, culminating in complete extinguishment of the fire. These findings align with the existing literature, emphasizing the value of active experiential learning and immediate feedback in enhancing procedural competence and knowledge retention in high-risk training environments [36,37].

Regarding the survey results in the fire extinguishers set of questions, a problem can be identified in questions 1 and 4, where the percentage of correct answers decreased compared to the previous questionnaire after the training. After reviewing the individual responses, it was identified that two participants responded incorrectly to this and other questions, with a high percentage of correct answers. There is a possibility that they did not pay enough attention to the training session or that they completed the survey quickly, thus altering the results. Other reasons that may have influenced this error are possible misinterpretations of comments made during practice, such as the 20% of participants who believed they could extinguish the fire by adapting the conditions of use. This raises some questions about the training: Are participants receiving too much information during the session? Would it be better to focus on the most basic aspects?

However, when analyzing the durability of knowledge over time, the opposite effect was observed. Questions 1 and 4 of the fire extinguishers section rose again in correct answers, although without reaching the original percentage. In addition, the remaining questions with high percentages of correct answers after the session slightly decreased after three months. However, the rate of correct answers remained significantly higher than that in the initial survey, especially for question 5. Considering that the data obtained from the third survey are the most definitive, as they are the knowledge that persists over time, it can be positively noted that all the answers in the fire extinguishers section are above 71.4%, although there is still room for improvement.

In the second set of questions, regarding how to deal with fire, the percentage of correct answers increased in all the answers after the session. Only three of them decreased after three months, but this percentage was still significantly higher than that in the first survey. Additionally, in no case was it below 78.6% of correct answers, which can be considered a positive result regarding the durability of knowledge among participants.

In the analysis of the participants’ prior knowledge, the results of the first two questions were contradictory. We observed that 61.9% of the participants knew someone who had experienced a serious domestic danger, mostly related to fires. However, 90.5% of them considered their current level of knowledge about domestic safety to be medium or low. The main sources of information were the Internet (42.9%) and education and work experience (52.3%), although education was a particularity of the participants’ profiles in this experience. Additionally, the response regarding the Internet may be somewhat ambiguous, as it can include online training, social networking, video platforms, and other resources.

After the training session, 85% of the participants strongly agreed on the use of theoretical presentations and virtual scenarios for training in domestic safety and prevention. They highlighted the lecture and commented that they would have liked to practice more scenes in the virtual simulator. Additionally, only 10% of participants had previously received training with virtual reality or simulated environments; therefore, they considered using the tool in preventive training as very innovative. After the experience, 100% of the participants considered that the public should receive this safety training. Furthermore, all participants were assured that they would talk to their relatives and acquaintances about basic safety concepts.

Three months after training, 78.6% of participants considered that they had changed some habits in their daily lives that could pose a safety risk. Specifically, the most mentioned habits were closing doors when leaving the house (66.7%), not overloading electrical sockets (66.7%), not leaving electrical devices charging for hours (58.3%), and always watching food while it is cooking (58.3%). Most respondents (78.6%) had shared their CSRP learning with their families, followed by friends and partners (57.1% each). These results can be directly related to the 85.7% who have recommended their family and/or acquaintances to take the training at the CSRP, finding that 8.3% of these family members and acquaintances were going to take the training soon.

An important indirect outcome of these sessions was the emergence of participants as informal safety advocates in their personal networks. Many attendees actively disseminated the knowledge acquired during training to family members and friends, thereby extending the reach of domestic safety education beyond the immediate scope of the sessions. Notably, this transmission of information occurred within a framework regulated and supervised by qualified professionals, offering a controlled alternative to unverified or potentially misleading safety advice often encountered through informal channels, such as social media or video-sharing platforms. This highlights an ongoing challenge: increasing citizen engagement in structured, evidence-based training programs while promoting responsible and consensus-driven safety communication within the community.

5. Conclusions

Repeated practical exercises are essential to help citizens better face and handle risky situations. This allows them to practice and gain confidence in a dangerous situation that they have already faced, albeit simulated. In real situations, more factors affect the victim and their environment; however, having experienced a similar situation before could prepare them to handle it more adequately. This study demonstrates that in future drills and learning sessions, participants must perform the same practical test at least twice: once to establish contact with the environment and available tools, and again to avoid repeating the mistakes made during the first attempt. If both tests also have theoretical support, success increases significantly, allowing knowledge to endure over time, as there is logical reasoning behind the actions to be taken.

The use of different simulated scenarios or multiple versions of a single scenario would enable participants to engage with a broader range of situations, thereby enriching their learning experience. This study demonstrated that repeated exposure to the same scenario fosters a trial-and-error learning process. However, introducing new and diverse scenarios not only enhances participants’ adaptability but also increases their sense of confidence and security when facing potential danger in real-life situations. Following this experiment, the participants expressed a clear interest in practicing additional scenes within the virtual environment. This demand was driven by two main factors: first, the motivation and sense of satisfaction experienced upon successfully completing the initial task, and second, their desire for self-improvement and self-assessment to determine whether they could respond effectively in a novel, unfamiliar situation. Furthermore, increasing both the quantity and variety of practical exercises within training sessions could significantly help reduce emotional stress among citizens, as greater familiarity with simulated risk environments would likely enhance their sense of preparedness and control.

The findings of this study also revealed that the delivery of excessive or overly detailed information during a single session can occasionally lead to cognitive overload, confusion, or misinterpretation among participants. Such outcomes may diminish the overall efficacy of the intervention by hindering knowledge retention or promoting misconceptions about appropriate safety responses. To optimize the impact of these educational initiatives, it is therefore advisable to clearly establish and communicate a concise set of learning objectives at the outset of each session. Prioritizing the transmission of essential, actionable safety concepts—those most critical for immediate application in domestic emergencies—may enhance participant engagement, comprehension, and long-term retention.

Assessing participants’ knowledge at the end of the sessions not only identifies weaknesses and improvement points of these sessions but also tests them and encourages self-awareness. As observed in the survey results, although the success rate typically decreased slightly after three months, this was not the case for some questions. This suggests that some participants searched for correct answers after the second survey. In fact, as seen in the practical tests, making mistakes improves the learning process, making it more memorable and effective, thus achieving better results.

6. Further Research

The participant profile in this study consisted of students who were already familiar with the fundamental principles of prevention and safety. While the experiment offers valuable conclusions that can improve the design of future training sessions, there are limitations concerning the representativeness of the sample in relation to the general population. Based on this experience, it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of training sessions for citizens who have no prior exposure to or involvement in safety. As part of future research, it would be worthwhile to extend the experiment to a larger and more diverse sample of participants, encompassing a broader range of profiles and age groups with no prior knowledge of safety. Furthermore, conducting a full-scale experimental validation of virtual training would significantly strengthen the conclusions of this study and provide critical evidence regarding the transferability of virtual learning outcomes to real-world emergency responses.

The application of VE in drills has great versatility in terms of scenarios and difficulty levels. In future applications, it can be evaluated with specific groups belonging to certain professions or profiles, e.g., cooking students or laboratory technicians. Future investigations should explore the implementation of this training in specific vulnerable groups, such as older adults, children, or individuals with physical or cognitive limitations, to reduce disparities in access to safety education and promote inclusive prevention strategies. Creating experiences aimed at specific groups could also result in wider dissemination and increased citizen interest.

The virtual drills employed in this study relied on audio and visual simulations without incorporating other sensory stimuli, such as heat or real smoke. While visual immersion is undoubtedly a valuable educational tool, the absence of these additional sensory stimuli may limit the emotional and cognitive realism of the scenario, particularly in terms of perceived urgency, situational stress, and physiological responses. To enhance the training effectiveness of future simulations, it would be beneficial to integrate these additional sensory stimuli, which could include controlled temperature to replicate heat and artificial smoke to reduce visibility.

The inherent adaptability and portability of this system make it well-suited for deployment beyond the CSRP in Zaragoza. Its flexible architecture allows seamless integration into a wide variety of settings, including educational institutions such as high schools and vocational training centers, where it can support risk awareness and preparedness among younger populations. Additionally, it holds significant potential in eldercare environments, such as nursing homes, where immersive simulations can be tailored to address age-specific safety scenarios and cognitive engagement [38,39]. In the industrial sector, the system can serve as a valuable tool for occupational safety training, offering employees realistic, low-risk environments to rehearse emergency protocols and hazard recognition [40]. The system’s scalability and ease of implementation suggest that it could be adapted to diverse user groups and organizational contexts, thereby contributing to a broader culture of safety education and risk mitigation across society.

As a logical next step, it would be beneficial to design additional simulations that explore variables beyond individual behavioral responses, focusing instead on environmental and structural factors that influence fire safety outcomes. Specifically, future research could investigate the effects of enhanced passive fire protection measures, such as the incorporation of thermal barriers, improved compartmentation, and the use of fire-resistant furnishings on both the progression of domestic fires and occupants’ evacuation performance. Additionally, it would be valuable to examine the impact of keeping exit doors open during evacuation procedures, as this practice could significantly alter smoke movement, heat transfer, and visibility within the affected area, thereby influencing occupants’ decision-making, evacuation time, and overall safety. Incorporating these contextual variables into virtual simulations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of fire safety dynamics in domestic environments and contribute to the development of more effective prevention and response strategies for residential settings.