Advertisement

Crossing Disciplinary Borders Through Studying Walkability

  • Stefania Bandini
  • Andrea GorriniEmail author
  • Katsuhiro Nishinari
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9741)

Abstract

Computer-based simulations of pedestrian dynamics are aimed at improving the walkability of urban crowded scenarios, considering the pedestrians’ comfort and safety. The validation of the developed models requires a cross-disciplinary approach, and the acquisition of empirical evidences about human behavior is mandatory. The main purpose of this work is to report two case studies which allowed to perform simulations and validate the ELIAS38 agent-based computational model: (i) the naturalistic observation of pedestrian dynamics in an urban commercial-touristic walkway, focused on the impact of grouping and ageing on speed; (ii) the controlled experiment of pedestrian spatial behavior, focused on the impact of speed and cultural differences on personal space.

Keywords

Pedestrian Walkability Groups Age Culture Proxemics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Italian law was complied with respect to the privacy of the people recorded during the in vivo observation. The experiment in vitro was performed within the authorization of The University of Tokyo and it was founded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The authors thank Giuseppe Vizzari, Luca Crociani and Kenichiro Shimura for their valuable contributions.

References

  1. 1.
    Abley, S.: Walkability scoping paper. Charted Traffic Transp. Eng. 4, 2011 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandini, S., Crociani, L., Gorrini, A., Vizzari, G.: An agent-based model of pedestrian dynamics considering groups: a real world case study. In: 2014 IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 572–577. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandini, S., Gorrini, A., Vizzari, G.: Towards an integrated approach to crowd analysis and crowd synthesis: a case study and first results. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 44, 16–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baum, A., Paulus, P.: Crowding. In: Stokols, D., Altman, I. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, pp. 533–570. Wiley, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canetti, E.: Crowds and Power: Masse und Macht. Viking Press, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Challenger, W., Clegg, W., Robinson, A.: Understanding Crowd Behaviours: Guidance and Lessons Identified. UK Cabinet Office, London (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa, M.: Interpersonal distances in group walking. J. Nonverbal Behav. 34(1), 15–26 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley Reading, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fruin, J.J.: Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gifford, R.: Research Methods for Environmental Psychology. Wiley Blackwell & Sons, Oxford (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K.G.: Simulation for the Social Scientist. McGraw-Hill, London (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwin, C.J.: Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. Wiley, New Jersey (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorrini, A., Bandini, S., Vizzari, G.: Empirical investigation on pedestrian crowd dynamics and grouping. In: Chraibi, M., Boltes, M., Schadschneider, A., Seyfried, A. (eds.) Traffic and Granular Flow’13, pp. 83–91. Springer, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorrini, A., Shimura, K., Bandini, S., Ohtsuka, K., Nishinari, K.: Experimental investigation of pedestrian personal space: toward modeling and simulation of pedestrian crowd dynamics. J. Transp. Res. B 2421, 57–63 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall, E.: The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayduk, L.A.: Personal space: where we now stand? Psychol. Bull. 94(2), 293–335 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heilig, G.K.: World urbanization prospects: the 2011 revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helbing, D.: Traffic and related self-driven many-particle systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 73(4), 1067 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iwata, O.: Crowding and behavior in japanese public spaces: some observations and speculations. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 20(1), 57–70 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mawson, A.R.: Mass panic and social attachment: the dynamics of human behavior. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moussaïd, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., Theraulaz, G.: The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PloS ONE 5(4), e10047 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Musso, A., Nuzzolo, A., Crisalli, U., Longo, G.: Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 5. Elsevier, Japan (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nishinari, K., Kirchner, A., Namazi, A., Schadschneider, A.: Extended floor field CA model for evacuation dynamics. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 87(3), 726–732 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    World Health Organization: Global age-friendly cities: a guide. World Health Organization (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization, et al.: Pedestrian safety: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. World Health Organization (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patterson, M.L.: An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychol. Rev. 83(3), 235–45 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schaie, K.W., Willis, S.L.: Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. Academic Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schultz, M., Schulz, C., Fricke, H.: Passenger dynamics at airport terminal environment. In: Rogsch, C., Klingsch, W., Schadschneider, A. (eds.) Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2008, pp. 381–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shimura, K., Ohtsuka, K., Vizzari, G., Nishinari, K., Bandini, S.: Mobility analysis of the aged pedestrians by experiment and simulation. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 44, 58–63 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Templeton, A., Drury, J., Philippides, A.: From mindless masses to small groups: conceptualizing collective behavior in crowd modeling. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19, 215–229 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webb, J.D., Weber, M.J.: Influence of sensory abilities on the interpersonal distance of the elderly. Environ. Behav. 35(5), 695–711 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winogrond, I.R.: A comparison of interpersonal distancing behavior in young and elderly adults. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 13(1), 53–60 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Int. J. Bioeth., 15(1), 124 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Bandini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Gorrini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katsuhiro Nishinari
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Systems and Communication, CSAI-Complex Systems and Artificial Intelligence Research CenterUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.RCAST-Research Center for Advance Science and TechnologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations