Simulating Collective Evacuations with Social Elements

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10448)


This work proposes an agent-based evacuation model that incorporates social aspects in the behaviour of the agents and validates it on a benchmark. It aims to fill the gap in this research field with mainly evacuation models without psychological and social factors such as group decision making and other social interactions. The model was compared with the previous model, its new social features were analysed and the model was validated. With the inclusion of social aspects, new patterns emerge organically from the behaviour of each agent as showed in the experiments. Notably, people travelling in groups instead of alone seem to reduce evacuation time and helping behaviour is not too costly for the evacuation time as expected. The model was validated with data from a real scenario and demonstrates acceptable results and the potential to be used in predicting real emergency scenarios. This model will be used by emergency management professionals in emergency prevention.


Social contagion Agents Model Evacuation Simulation 


  1. 1.
    Challenger, R., et al.: Understanding Crowd Behaviours. Practical Guidance and Lessons Identified, vol. 1. The Stationery Office (TSO), London (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drury, J., Cocking, C., Reicher, S.: Everyone for themselves? A comparative study of crowd solidarity among emergency survivors. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48(3), 487–506 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eagly, A.H., Crowley, M.: Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol. Bull. 100(3), 283–308 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feinberg, W.E., Norris, R.J.: Firescap: a computer simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J. Math. Sociol. 20(2-3), 247–269 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galea, E., Deere, S., Filippidis, L.: The Safeguard Validation Data Set—sgvds1 a Guide to the Data and Validation Procedures. Fire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, London (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gwynne, S., Galea, E.R., Owen, M., Lawrence, P.J., Filippidis, L.: A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Build. Environ. 34(6), 741–749 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobes, M., et al.: Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Saf. J. 45(1), 1–11 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murakami, Y., Minami, K., Kawasoe, T., Ishida, T.: Multi-agent simulation for crisis management. In: 2002 Proceedings of Knowledge Media Networking, pp. 135–139 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owen, M., Galea, E.R., Lawrence, P.J.: The exodus evacuation model applied to building evacuation scenarios. J. Fire. Prot. Eng. 8(2), 65586 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Proulx, G., Fahy, R.F.: The time delay to start evacuation: review of five case studies. Fire Saf. Sci. 5, 783–794 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: from theory to practice. ICMAS 95, 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reininger, B.M., et al.: Intention to comply with mandatory hurricane evacuation orders among persons living along a coastal area. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 7(01), 46–54 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santos, G., Aguirre, B.E.: A critical review of emergency evacuation simulation models. In: Peacock, R.D., Kuligowski, E.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Building Occupant Movement During Fire Emergencies, pp. 27–52, 10–11 June 2004Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D., Potter, J.: Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: big five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 330 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Still, G.K.: Introduction to Crowd Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Templeton, A., Drury, J., Philippides, A.: From mindless masses to small groups: conceptualizing collective behavior in crowd modeling. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 19, 215 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treur, J.: Network-Oriented Modeling: Addressing Complexity of Cognitive, Affective and Social Interactions. Springer, Berlin (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Wal, C.N., Formolo, D., Bosse, T.: An agent-based evacuation model with social contagion mechanisms and cultural factors. In: Proceedings of the IEA/AIE 2017 (2017) (in press)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Wal, C.N., Formolo, D., Robinson, M.A., Minkov, M., Bosse, T.: Simulating crowd evacuation with socio-cultural, cognitive, and emotional elements. Trans. Comput. Collect. Intell. (2017) (in press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo: center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston (1999).
  21. 21.
    Willis, A., Gjersoe, N., Havard, C., Kerridge, J., Kukla, R.: Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments. Environ. Plan. 31(6), 805–828 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zheng, X., Zhong, T., Liu, M.: Modeling crowd evacuation of a building based on seven methodological approaches. Build. Environ. 44(3), 437–445 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations