Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Familiarity and Exit Route Selection in Emergency Egress

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Familiarity is widely accepted as a key variable for the exit route selection of occupants of a building in emergency egress, but how to evaluate it has not been well researched. In addition, familiarity with general space layout (building familiarity) and familiarity with exits (exit familiarity) are often interchangeably used, which may cause inappropriate understanding of building and occupant characteristics among fire engineers and architects. In the current study, a paper-based survey was conducted to examine the difference between the two familiarities in a six-story library building. The two familiarities were implicitly evaluated by the spatial knowledge of the participants on the locations of restrooms, elevators, stairways for exit purposes in an emergency, and their current location. Sixty-nine valid responses of the participants’ spatial knowledge were semi-quantitatively evaluated based upon the accuracy of the answered position against the actual position. The results reveal that the two familiarities are not synonymous and needs to be understood and handled differently in fire engineering. In particular, the location of emergency-only exit stairways was perceived as low as 20% of non-emergency-only stairways; on average, each of the former and latter stairways was perceived by 8 and 33 participants out of 69 participants, respectively. This result raises concerns about the efficacy of the emergency-only-exit concept. The direction of the next destination out of a building was found to be a key factor to determine the travel route within a building where occupants have good familiarity with the building and surrounding places.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Code Council (2015) International building code. International Code Council

  2. National Fire Protection Association (2018) NFPA 101, life safety code. Natl Fire Prot Assoc Batter Park PO Box

  3. Australian Building Codes Board (2013) National construction code series volume 1, building code of Australia 2013, class 2 to 9 buildings. Canberra Aust Build Codes Board 163

  4. Mawson AR (2005) Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry Interpers Biol Process 68:95–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shields TJ, Boyce KE (2000) A study of evacuation from large retail stores. Fire Saf J 35:25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sime JD (1985) Movement toward the familiar: person and place affiliation in a fire entrapment setting. Environ Behav 17:697–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frantzich H (2001) Occupant behaviour and response time. In: 2nd international symposium on human behaviour in fire. Interscience Communications, pp 159–165

  8. Park H, Meacham BJ, Dembsey NA, Goulthorpe M (2013) Enhancing building fire safety performance by reducing miscommunication and misconceptions. Fire Technol 50:183–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-013-0365-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2014) Traffic information signs, colour scheme of emergency exit portals and acoustic systems for road tunnel emergency evacuations. Department of Fire Protection Engineering, Lund University Report 3173

  10. Carattin E, Lovreglio R, Ronchi E, Nilsson D (2016) Affordance-based evaluation of signage design for areas of refuge. In: Interflam 2016. Fire science and engineering conference, pp 781–786

  11. McClintock T, Shields TJ, Reinhardt-Rutland A, Leslie J (2001) A behavioural solution to the learned irrelevance of emergency exit

  12. Low DJ (2000) Statistical physics: following the crowd. Nature 407:465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Helbing D, Farkas I, Vicsek T (2000) Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407:487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heliövaara S, Kuusinen J-M, Rinne T et al (2012) Pedestrian behavior and exit selection in evacuation of a corridor—an experimental study. Saf Sci 50:221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Proulx G (2001) Occupant behaviour and evacuation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international fire protection symposium, pp 219–232

  16. Kinateder M, Comunale B, Warren WH (2018) Exit choice in an emergency evacuation scenario is influenced by exit familiarity and neighbor behavior. Saf Sci 106:170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Graham TL, Roberts DJ (2000) Qualitative overview of some important factors affecting the egress of people in hotel fires. Int J Hosp Manag 19:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sandberg A (1997) Unannounced evacuation of large retail-stores—an evaluation of human behaviour and the computer model Simulex

  19. Benthorn L, Frantzich H (1999) Fire alarm in a public building: how do people evaluate information and choose an evacuation exit? Fire Mater 23:311–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grosshandler WL, Bryner N, Madrzykowski D, Kuntz K (2005) Report of the technical investigation of the station nightclub fire

  21. Chen T, Pan L, Zhang H et al (2013) Experimental study of evacuation from a 4-storey building. Procedia Eng 62:538–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chu ML, Parigi P, Law K, Latombe J-C (2014) Modeling social behaviors in an evacuation simulator. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 25:373–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.1595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dijkstra J, Chen Q, de Vries B, Jessurun J (2014) Measuring individual’s egress preference in wayfinding through virtual navigation experiments. In: Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2012. Springer, pp 371–383

  24. Ulriksen L, Dederichs AS (2014) Evacuation of day care centres for children 0–6 years: simulations using Simulex. In: Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2012. Springer, pp 959–969

  25. Raubal M, Winter S (2002) Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: International conference on geographic information science. Springer, pp 243–259

  26. Lovelace KL, Hegarty M, Montello DR (1999) Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: International conference on spatial information theory. Springer, pp 65–82

  27. Gale N, Doherty S, Pellegrino JW, Golledge RG (1985) Toward reassembling the image. Child Environ Q 2:10–18

    Google Scholar 

  28. Golledge RG, Jacobson RD, Kitchin R, Blades M (2000) Cognitive maps, spatial abilities, and human wayfinding. Geogr Rev Jpn Ser B 73:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lindberg E, Gärling T (1982) Acquisition of locational information about reference points during locomotion: the role of central information processing. Scand J Psychol 23:207–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaplan S (1976) Adaptation, structure and knowledge. In: Moore GT, Golledge RG (eds) Environ Knowing. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 32–45

  31. Kaplan S, Fitzpatrick G, Docherty M (2000) Stepping into cooperative buildings. In: User interface conference, 2000. AUIC 2000. First Australasian. IEEE, pp 33–40

  32. Gale N, Golledge RG, Pellegrino JW, Doherty S (1990) The acquisition and integration of route knowledge in an unfamiliar neighborhood. J Environ Psychol 10:3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gibson JJ (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception , classic edn. Psychology Press, Milton Park

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Kerr NA, Yore MM, Ham SA, Dietz WH (2004) Increasing stair use in a worksite through environmental changes. Am J Health Promot 18:312–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fire Protection and Safety Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 543 Engineering North, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA

    Dongwoo Song & Haejun Park

  2. Fire and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungnam University, 7 Kyungnamdaehak-ro, Masanhappo-gu, Changwon-si, Gyeongnam, South Korea

    Changhoon Bang

  3. Fire Protection and Safety Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 541 Engineering North, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA

    Rob Agnew

  4. Fire Protection and Safety Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 545 Engineering North, Stillwater, OK, 74075, USA

    Virginia Charter

Authors
  1. Dongwoo Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haejun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Changhoon Bang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rob Agnew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Virginia Charter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haejun Park.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, D., Park, H., Bang, C. et al. Spatial Familiarity and Exit Route Selection in Emergency Egress. Fire Technol 55, 2269–2287 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00858-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00858-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation