Crowd Evacuation Simulation

  • Tomoichi Takahashi
Living reference work entry


Evacuation simulation systems simulate the evacuation behaviors of people during emergencies. In an emergency, people are upset and hence do not behave as they do during evacuation drills. Reports on past disasters reveal various unusual human behaviors. An agent-based system enables an evacuation simulation to consider these human behaviors, including their mental and social status. Simulation results that take the human factor into consideration seem to be a good tool for creating and improving preventions plans. However, it is important to verify and validate the simulation results for evacuations in unusual scenarios that have not yet occurred. This chapter shows that the combination of an agent’s physical and mental status and pedestrian dynamics is the key to replicating various human behaviors in crowd evacuation simulation. This realistic crowd evacuation simulation has the potential for practical application in the field.


Evacuation behavior Emergency scenario Agent-based simulation Cognitive map Psychological factor Belief-desire-intention Information transfer and sharing model Verification and validation 


  1. Abe K (1986) Panic and human science: prevention and safety in disaster management. Buren Shuppan. in Japanese, JapanGoogle Scholar
  2. Averill JD, Mileti DS, Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED, Groner NE (2005) Occupant behavior, egress, and emergency communications (NIST NCSTAR 1–7). Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaitherburgGoogle Scholar
  3. B. news Woman dies after ‘terror drill’ at Kenya’s strathmore university. Date:16 Mar 2016
  4. Banerjee B, Kraemer L (2010) Validation of agent based crowd egress simulation (extended abstract). In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiAgent systems (AAMAS’10). pp 1551–1552.
  5. Cabinet Office Government of Japan. Prevention Disaster Conference, the Great West Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Report on evacuation behavior of people (in Japanese). Date: 16 Mar 2016. in Japanese.
  6. Cabinet Office of UK (2011) Understanding crowd behaviours: documents. 20 Mar 2016
  7. de Walle BV, Murray T (2007) Emergency response information systems: emerging trends and technologies. Commun ACM 50(3):28–65Google Scholar
  8. Drabek TE (2013) The human side of disaster, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dridi M (2015) Simulation of high density pedestrian flow: a microscopic model. Open J Model Simul 3(4):81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feynman RP (1967) Seeking new laws. In: The character of physical law. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Galea ER, Hulse L, Day R, Siddiqui A, Sharp G, Boyce K, Summerfield L, Canter D, Marselle M, Greenall PV (2008) The uk wtc9/11 evacuation study: an overview of the methodologies employed and some preliminary analysis. In: Schreckenberg A, Klingsch WWF, Rogsch C, Schreckenberg M (eds) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2008 (pp. 3–24). Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosshandler WL, Bryner NP, Madrzykowski D, Kuntz K (2005) Report of the technical investigation of the station nightclub fire (NIST NCSTAR 2). Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaitherburgGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawe GI, Coates G, Wilson DT, Crouch RS (2012) Agent-based simulation for large-scale emergency response. ACM Comput Surv 45(1):1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helbing D, Farkas I, Vicsek T (2000) Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407:487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isenhour ML, Löhner R (2014) Validation of a pedestrian simulation tool using the {NIST} stairwell evacuation data. Transp Res Procedia 2:739–744, The Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2014 (PED 2014), 22–24 October 2014, Delft, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO:TR16738:2009. Fire-safety engineering – technical information on methods for evaluating behaviour and movement of peopleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuligowski ED (2005) Review of 28 egress models. In: NIST SP 1032; Workshop on building occupant movement during fire emergencies.Google Scholar
  18. Musse SR, Thalmann D (2007) Crowd simulation. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Natalie Fridman AZ, Kaminka GA (2013) The impact of culture on crowd dynamics: an empirical approach. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS’13, p 143–150Google Scholar
  20. Niwa T, Okaya M, Takahash T (2015) TENDENKO: agent-based evacuation drill and emergency planning system. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9002. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. Okaya M, Takahashi T (2014) Effect of guidance information and human relations among agents on crowd evacuation behavior. In: Kirsch U, Weidmann U, Schreckenberg M (eds) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2012. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  22. Okaya M, Southern M, Takahashi T (2013) Dynamic information transfer and sharing model in agent based evacuation simulations. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS 13. pp 1295–1296Google Scholar
  23. Okumura H (2014) The 3.11 disaster and data. J Inf Process 22(4):566–573MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Parikh N, Swarup S, Stretz PE, Rivers CM, Bryan MVM, Lewis L, Eubank SG, Barrett CL, Lum K, Chungbaek Y (2013) Modeling human behavior in the aftermath of a hypothetical improvised nuclear detonation. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS’13, pp 949–956Google Scholar
  25. Peacock RD, Kuligowski ED, Averill JD (2011) Pedestrian and evacuaion dynamics. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  26. Pelechano N, Allbeck J, Badler N (2008) Virtual crowds: methods, simulation, and control. Morgan & Claypool Publishers series, California, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Ripley A (2008) The unthinkable: who survives when disaster strikes – and why. New York: Three Rivers PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Ronchi E, Kuligowski ED, Reneke PA, Peacock RD, Nilsson D (2013) The process of verification and validation of building fire evacuation models. Technical report. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaitherburg. Technical Note 1822Google Scholar
  29. Saijo T (2014) Be a tsunami survivor. Date:17 Mar 2016
  30. Takahashi T (2015) Qualitative methods of validating evacuation behaviors. In Takayasu H, Ito N, Noda I, Takayasu M (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on social modeling and simulation, plus econophysics colloquium 2014. Springer proceedings in complexity. Springer International Publishing, pp 231–242Google Scholar
  31. Takahashi T, Niwa T, Isono R (2015) Method for simulating the evacuation behaviours of people in dynamically changing situations. In: Proceedings of TGF2015. Springer. To be published in 2016 FallGoogle Scholar
  32. Tokyo Fire Department. Excellence mark -certified fire safety building indication system. Date: 25 Jan 2016
  33. Tsai J, Fridman N, Bowring E, Brown M, Epstein S, Kaminka G, Marsella S, Ogden A, Rika I, Sheel A, Taylor ME, Wang X, Zilka A, Tambe M (2011) Escapes: evacuation simulation with children, authorities, parents, emotions, and social comparison. In: The 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 2, AAMAS’11. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, pp 457–464Google Scholar
  34. Turoff M (2002) Past and future emergency response information systems. Commun ACM 45(4):29–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wanger N, Agrawal V (2014) An agent-based simulation system for concert venue crowd evacuation modeling in the presence of a fire disaster. Expert Syst Appl 41:2807–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weidmann U, Kirch U, Schreckenberg M (eds) (2014) Pedestrain and evacuation dynamics 2012. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  37. Weiss G (2000) Multiagent systems. The MIT Press, MassachusetsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringMeijo UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations