Skip to main content
Log in

Guidance for the Model Developer on Representing Human Behavior in Egress Models

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Other approaches are employed, such as the objective-based approach adopted in Canada, although this approach is less frequently employed.

  2. Egress model is taken to mean any method by which egress performance is understood and/or quantified.

  3. Previously referred to as behavioral facts [3].

  4. 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.

  5. The developer may also validate the conceptual model against the referrant material to ensure the accuracy of the assumptions made.

  6. 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].

  7. 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

  1. Approved Document B (2006) Vol 1 Dwelling Houses, Building Regulations 2000, Communities and Local Government

  2. Kuligowski ED, Peacock RD, Hoskins B (2010) A review of building evacuation models, 2nd edn, TechNote 1680, NIST

  3. Gwynne SMV (2012) Translating behavioral theory of human response into modeling practice, NIST GCR - 12-972, National Institute of Standards and Technology

  4. 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

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. Sokolowski JA (2010) Modeling and simulation fundamentals: theoretical underpinnings and practical domains. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuligowski ED (2009) The process of human behavior in fires. Technical note 1632, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

  9. Kuligowski ED, Gwynne SMV (2005) What a user should know about selecting an evacuation model. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine, Human Behaviour in Fire Issue

  10. Gwynne S, Kuligowski E, Nilsson D (2012) Representing evacuation behavior in engineering terms. J Fire Prot Eng 22(2):133–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Life-Threatening components of fire—Guidelines for the estimation of time available for escape using fire data (2002), ISO/TS 13571, International Standards Organisation

  13. The application of fire engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings: Part 6 - Human factors (2004), PD 7974-6:2004, British Standards

  14. Engineering Guide to Human Behaviour in Fire, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2002

  15. 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

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Personal Communication (2014) Sefton Hyde-Clarke, National Research Council, Canada

  18. Sime J (1984) Escape behaviour in fire: ‘panic’ or affiliation? PhD Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey

  19. Canter D (1980) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. Proulx G (1993) A stress model for people facing a fire. J Environ Psychol 13:137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

  25. 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

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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

  27. Yoshimura H (2000) Human behavior. In: 4th Proceedings of the Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology (pp. 137–141). Osaka University, Tokyo

  28. 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.)

  29. 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

  30. Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where, and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Safety J 36:623–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Green CH (1980) Risk: beliefs and attitudes. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour (pp. 277–291). Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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

  33. Sime JD (1983) Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. J Environ Psychol 3:21–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wood PG (1972) The behaviour of people in fires (Rep. No. Fire Research Note No. 953). University of Technology, Loughborough

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Reisser-Weston E (1996) Simulating human behaviour in emergency situations. In: RINA, International Conference of Escape, Fire, and Rescue

  39. 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

    Google Scholar 

  40. Withey SB (1962) Man and society in disaster. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Perry RW, Lindell MK, Greene MR (1981) Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mileti DS, Beck EM (1975) Communication in crisis: explaining evacuation symbolically. Commun Res 2(1):24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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

    Google Scholar 

  45. Feinberg WE, Johnson NR (1995) Firescap: a computer simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J Math Sociol 20:247–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

  47. 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

    Google Scholar 

  48. Teknomo K (2002) Microscopic pedestrian flow characteristics: development of an image processing data collection and simulation model, Tohoku University

  49. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pan X (2006) Computational modeling of human and social behaviors for emergency egress analysis. Thesis, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wijermans N (2011) Understanding crowd behaviour: simulating situated individuals. University of Groningen

  52. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Latane B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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

  55. Bruck D (2001) The who, what, where and why of waking to fire alarms: a review. Fire Saf J 36:623–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Klein G (1999) Sources of power: how people make decisions. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  57. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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

    Google Scholar 

  59. 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

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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

    Google Scholar 

  61. Turner RH, Killian LM (1987) Collective behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  62. Aguirre BE, Wenger D, Vigo G (1998) A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behaviour. Sociol Forum 13(2):301–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Macphail C (1991) The myth of the madding crowd. Aldine De Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lerup LDC, Liu JKC (1980) Fires in nursing facilities. In: Canter D (ed) Fires and human behaviour. Wiley, New York, pp. 155–180.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-520-05728-7

  66. Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  67. Drury J, Reicher S (2000) Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. Br J Soc Psychol 39:579–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of environments. Psychol Rev 63:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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

  70. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2004) Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. V. Gwynne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0501-2

Keywords

Navigation