Abstract
Structures are currently designed and typically constructed in accordance with prescriptive and performance-based methodologies to ensure a certain level of safety. The performance-based approach requires the quantification of both available safe egress time (ASET) and required safe egress time (RSET) to determine the degree of safety provided. This article focuses on the RSET side of the equation, for which an engineer would use some type of egress modelling approach to estimate evacuation performance. Often, simple engineering equations are applied to estimate the RSET value; however, over time, more sophisticated computational tools have appeared. Irrespective of the approach adopted, appropriate and accurate representation of human behavior in fire within these approaches is limited, mainly due to the lack of a comprehensive conceptual model of evacuee decision-making and behavior during fire emergencies. This article initially presents a set of behavioral statements that represent the primary elements of current understanding regarding evacuee behavior. Once presented, guidance is provided on how these behavioral statements might be incorporated by the model developer into an egress model. The intent here is to assist in the advancement of current egress models by outlining the model structures required to represent the current understanding of egress behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Other approaches are employed, such as the objective-based approach adopted in Canada, although this approach is less frequently employed.
Egress model is taken to mean any method by which egress performance is understood and/or quantified.
Previously referred to as behavioral facts [3].
This article does not address the interaction between the embedded and existing sub-models within the computational environment, or the range of verification and validation tasks that would be required to examine these interactions.
The developer may also validate the conceptual model against the referrant material to ensure the accuracy of the assumptions made.
The gap between current model development and expected behavior is most significant in locations where there is greatest dependency on the individual decision-making process; e.g. residential occupancies, as opposed to office occupancies where a formal evacuation procedure will exist and likely inform evacuation performance [17].
These conceptual models have therefore been configured such that they can be implemented within a larger model structure. This may or may not have been the case with the conceptual models described earlier [66].
References
Approved Document B (2006) Vol 1 Dwelling Houses, Building Regulations 2000, Communities and Local Government
Kuligowski ED, Peacock RD, Hoskins B (2010) A review of building evacuation models, 2nd edn, TechNote 1680, NIST
Gwynne SMV (2012) Translating behavioral theory of human response into modeling practice, NIST GCR - 12-972, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Kuligowski ED (2011) Terror defeated: occupant sensemaking, decision-making and protective action in the 2001 World Trade Center Disaster, University of Colorado, PhD Dissertation, http://gradworks.umi.com/3453742.pdf
Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED, Kinsey MJ, Hulse L (2015) Representing behavioural statements in egress models: a note for the model user (Manuscript submitted for publication)
Galea ER, Wang Z, Veeraswamy A, Jia F, Lawrence P, Ewer J (2008) Coupled fire/evacuation analysis of the station nightclub fire. In: Proceedings of 9th IAFSS Symposium Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008, pp. 465–476. doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-465
Sokolowski JA (2010) Modeling and simulation fundamentals: theoretical underpinnings and practical domains. Wiley, Hoboken
Kuligowski ED (2009) The process of human behavior in fires. Technical note 1632, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Kuligowski ED, Gwynne SMV (2005) What a user should know about selecting an evacuation model. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine, Human Behaviour in Fire Issue
Gwynne S, Kuligowski E, Nilsson D (2012) Representing evacuation behavior in engineering terms. J Fire Prot Eng 22(2):133–150
Gwynne S, Galea ER, Lawrence PJ, Owen M, Filippidis L (1999) A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Build Environ 34:741–749
Life-Threatening components of fire—Guidelines for the estimation of time available for escape using fire data (2002), ISO/TS 13571, International Standards Organisation
The application of fire engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings: Part 6 - Human factors (2004), PD 7974-6:2004, British Standards
Engineering Guide to Human Behaviour in Fire, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2002
Gwynne SMV, Kuligowski ED (2008) Application modes of egress simulation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics (PED2008), University of Wuppertal, Germany, February 27–29
Ronchi E, Gwynne SMV, Purser DA, Colonna P (2013) Representation of the impact of smoke on agent walking speeds in evacuation models. Fire Technol 49:411–431. doi:10.1007/s10694-012-0280-y
Personal Communication (2014) Sefton Hyde-Clarke, National Research Council, Canada
Sime J (1984) Escape behaviour in fire: ‘panic’ or affiliation? PhD Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey
Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York
Edelman P, Herz E, Bickman L (1980) A model of behaviour in fires applied to a nursing home fire. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 181–203
Proulx G (1993) A stress model for people facing a fire. J Environ Psychol 13:137–147
Tong D, Canter D (1985) The decision to evacuate: a study of the motivations which contribute to evacuation in the event of a fire. Fire Saf J 9:257–265
Averill JD, Mileti DS, Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED, Groner NE, Proulx G et al (2005) Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications (Rep. No. NIST NCSTAR 1-7). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg
Brennan P (1995) Smoke gets in your eyes: the effect of cue perception on behavior in smoke. In: ASIAFLAM ‘95. 1st Proceedings for the International Conference on Fire Science and Engineering (pp. 187–197). Interscience Communications, London
Bryan JL (1977) Smoke as a determinant of human behavior in fire situations (Project People) (Rep. No. NBS-GCR-77-94). National Bureau of Standards, Washington
Groner NE (1996) Important “people” problems in hazard analyses can be modeled by using a cognitive systems approach. In: Proceedings of the Fire Risk and Hazard Assessment Symposium. Research and Practice: Bridging the Gap (pp. 422–429). California University, Berkeley
Yoshimura H (2000) Human behavior. In: 4th Proceedings of the Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology (pp. 137–141). Osaka University, Tokyo
Bickman J, Edelman P, McDaniel MA (1977) Model of human behavior in a fire emergency (Rep. No. NBS GCR 78-120). National Bureau of Standards (U.S.)
Brennan P (1996) Impact of social interaction on time to begin evacuation in office building fires: implications for modelling behaviour. In: Franks CA, Grayson S (eds) Interflam ‘96. International Interflam Conference, 7th Proceedings (pp. 701–710). Interscience Communications, London
Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where, and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Safety J 36:623–639
Green CH (1980) Risk: beliefs and attitudes. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 277–291). Wiley, New York
Kimura M, Sime JD (1989) Exit choice behavior during the evacuation of two lecture theatres. In: Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Second International Symposium (pp. 541–550). Hemisphere Publishing Corp, Washington
Sime JD (1983) Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. J Environ Psychol 3:21–41
Wood PG (1972) The behaviour of people in fires (Rep. No. Fire Research Note No. 953). University of Technology, Loughborough
Brennan P (1999) Modelling cue recognition and pre-evacuation response. In: 6th International Symposium, International Association for Fire Safety Science (pp. 1029–1040). Boston, MA
Levin BM (1988) EXITT: a simulation model of occupant decisions and actions in residential fires (Rep. No. NBSIR 88-3753). National Institute of Standards and Technology
Ozel F (1993) Computer simulation of behavior in spaces. In: Marans RW, Stokols D (eds) Environmental simulation: research and policy issues. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191–204
Reisser-Weston E (1996) Simulating human behaviour in emergency situations. In: RINA, International Conference of Escape, Fire, and Rescue
Santos G, Aguirre BE (2005) Critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models. In: Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED (eds) Workshop on building occupant movement during fire emergencies. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp. 27–52
Withey SB (1962) Man and society in disaster. Basic Books, New York
Mileti DS, Sorensen JH (1990) Communication of emergency public warnings: a social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge
Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington Books, Lexington
Mileti DS, Beck EM (1975) Communication in crisis: explaining evacuation symbolically. Commun Res 2(1):24–49
Bryan JL (2002) Behavioral response to fire and smoke. In: DiNenno PJ (ed) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp. 3-315–3-341
Feinberg WE, Johnson NR (1995) Firescap: a computer simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J Math Sociol 20:247–269
Breaux J, Canter D, Sime JD (1976) Psychological aspects of behaviour of people in fire situations. In: International Fire Protection Seminar, 5th. Karlsruhe, West Germany, pp. 39–50
Canter D, Donald I, Chalk J (1992) Pedestrian behaviour during emergencies underground: the psychology of crowd control under life threatening circumstances. In: Vardy A (ed) Safety in road and rail tunnels. Independent Technical Conferences Ltd, Bedford, pp. 135–150
Teknomo K (2002) Microscopic pedestrian flow characteristics: development of an image processing data collection and simulation model, Tohoku University
Fridman N, Kaminka GA (2011) Towards a computational model of social comparison: some implications for the cognitive architecture. Cogn Syst Res 12(2):186–197
Pan X (2006) Computational modeling of human and social behaviors for emergency egress analysis. Thesis, Stanford University
Wijermans N (2011) Understanding crowd behaviour: simulating situated individuals. University of Groningen
Proulx G, Sime JD (1991) To prevent ‘panic’ in an underground emergency: why not tell people the truth? Fire Saf Sci 3:843–852. doi:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.3-843
Latane B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts, New York
Proulx G, Latour JC, MacLaurin JW (1994) Housing evacuation of mixed abilities occupants. IRC-IR-661, Internal Report, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada
Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36:623–639
Klein G (1999) Sources of power: how people make decisions. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138
Proulx G (2002) Movement of people: the evacuation timing. In: DiNenno PJ (ed) The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd edn. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, pp. 3-342–3-365
Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR (1972) When disaster strikes (it isn’t much like what you’ve heard and read about). Psychol Today 5:67–70
Fischer HW III (1998) Response to disaster: fact versus fiction and its perpetuation: the sociology of disaster, 2nd ed. University Press of America, New York
Turner RH, Killian LM (1987) Collective behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs
Aguirre BE, Wenger D, Vigo G (1998) A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behaviour. Sociol Forum 13(2):301–320
Macphail C (1991) The myth of the madding crowd. Aldine De Gruyter, New York
Lerup LDC, Liu JKC (1980) Fires in nursing facilities. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 155–180.
Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-520-05728-7
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Drury J, Reicher S (2000) Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. Br J Soc Psychol 39:579–604
Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychol Rev 63:129–138
Chu ML (2015) A computational framework incorporating human and social behaviors for occupant-centric egress simulation. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Erica Kuligowski (NIST) for her input throughout the development of this article and for use of her original concepts. Gwynne would like to thank Aoife Hunt (University of Greenwich) for feedback during the development and review of this article. Gwynne would also like to thank Sefton Hyde-Clarke, Lisette Seguin, Ahmed Kashef (NRC); and Andrew Waite, Jason Driscoll and Inderjeet Ghataora (unaffiliated) for their input during the review process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gwynne, S.M.V., Hulse, L.M. & Kinsey, M.J. Guidance for the Model Developer on Representing Human Behavior in Egress Models. Fire Technol 52, 775–800 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0501-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0501-2