Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(4) 1–23
Ó The Author(s) 2017
An emergency exits choice preference DOI: 10.1177/1687814017693541
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
model based on characteristics of
individual diversity

Zhihong Li1,2

Abstract
Previously compute models usually applied the assumption that people would adopt the shortest route to escape, or be
given fixed destination. But the diversity of characteristics mean everyone has an individual determination based on opti-
mal utility including distance, crowding level, and personalized cognition. We focused on the correlation between individ-
ual feature and their initial exits strategy in crowded places. By carrying out a questionnaire survey about individual
characteristics, spatial cognition, and personalized decision in a market, we found that each pedestrian held different pre-
ferences and probabilities of choosing a particular exit for evacuation due to diversity of social background. An emer-
gency exits choice preference model was proposed to analyze escape behavior and to determine the initial preference.
The model could balance the influence of differentiated cognition of various pedestrians against the practical evacuating
state and surroundings. And also, it could predict the destinations choosing probability in emergency. The result showed
the evacuation duration, maximum density, and highest density were more optimal. Applying this model, the pedestrians’
averaged density of exits decreased obviously. Stampede risk was significantly reduced. We expected to make a step that
the pedestrian behavior simulation will advance on integrating the human social behavior from theoretical precision.

Keywords
Exit choice, personalized behavior, spatial cognition, evacuation, individual characteristics

Date received: 7 September 2016; accepted: 16 January 2017

Academic Editor: Francesco Massi

Introduction familiar with the responses in case of an emergency by

Safety issue in public place has been closely related to
everyone, especially considering the disasters frequently
occurred in recent years. Many pedestrians lost their
lives in the building, transit station, stadium or super-
market, where many people with different characters,
targets, and behaviors usually gathered. Taking the
Beijing Panjiayuan Antique trading market as an exam-
ple, the management committee employs 50 persons in
charge of the on-site patrol to 47,600 passengers and
4000 merchants each weekend. The area of the antique
trading market is only 48,500 m2. Managers should
make great efforts to improve crowd controlling to
maintain safety for all the public members involved in
the crowded public places, and be well trained to be
the pre-designed evacuation schemes. It is particularly
important how to analyze the pedestrian escape beha-
vior in emergency.
1
Key Laboratory for Urban Transportation Complex Systems Theory
and Technology, Ministry of Education, Beijing Jiaotong University,
Beijing, China
2
Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Urban
Transportation Infrastructure Construction, Beijing University of Civil
Engineering and Architecture, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Zhihong Li, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Urban
Transportation Infrastructure Construction, Beijing University of Civil
Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China.
Email: lizhihong@bucea.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Many researchers simulated pedestrian behavior,
that is, leaving a building in the fire emergency and
produced quite meaningful outputs like evacuation
time estimate,1,2 individual evacuation behavior,3–5 the
network-based pedestrian evacuation model,6 and bot-
tleneck analysis.7,8 Many investigations were discussed
of pedestrians’ routing choice behavior in unfamiliar
buildings or environment by acquiring cognitive maps.9
T Nagatani and Nagai10 discussed the statistical char-
acteristic of evacuation without visibility. T Hyoung
and JoonhoKo11 analyzed the effects of individual and
built environment characteristics on the route choice.
K Arai and Sang12 and M Goetz13 presented an alloca-
tion model to rescue disabled persons in disaster area
with volunteers help using integration of geographic
information system (GIS) and multi-agent-based
model. G Sokhansefat et al.14 discussed the simulation
of crowding, panic, and disaster management, and
there were more research works in depth based on
Agent-Based Indoor Evacuation Simulation of way-
finding.15 A prior assumption in most literatures was
the completed spatial knowledge in these simulations.
That means each road or exit could be taken into con-
sideration by each pedestrian, which means the spatial
knowledge from individual experience was not well
considered. Compared with the perfect information
hypothesis, D Canca et al.16 proposed the individual
characteristic and behavior based on uncompleted spa-
tial cognitive hypothesis in an international firework
display and exhibition event.
However, the pedestrian’s behavior is a complex and
dynamic process, and these decision-making processes
are mostly based on subjective streamline design, which
will seldom consider the individual judgment, probabil-
ity of keeping rational, personal feature, and persona-
lized spatial cognition. Some pedestrians would not
know other exits. A phenomenon is likely to occur that
most pedestrians only run to a few limited exits,
whereas other exits are used by much fewer pedestrians.
Also, the proportion of people familiar with the surround-
ing environment in the general crowd gathering places
(station, mall, etc.) was much higher than that in those
special events (concert, stadium, etc.). The survey also
found that not everyone chooses his individual route by
his own decision, some people would follow the crowd
pouring or conductor. It may increase the average evacua-
tion time of all pedestrians, especially when pedestrians
are initially distributed in concentration. Parts of pedes-
trians who are familiar with the location of the evacuation
exits consider not only the distances from the current posi-
tion to the nearest exits but also the crowding degree
along the possible evacuation routes.
We proposed an emergency exits choice preference
(EECP) model based on the individual judgment, prob-
ability of keeping rational, personal feature, and perso-
nalized spatial cognition. The key points in this model
Figure 1. Daily flow of Beijing Panjiayuan Antique market in
April.
are that pedestrians with individual features and rational
judgment ability prefer to choose their evacuating routes
based on their visual condition and personalized cogni-
tion. Therefore, this article was supposed to provide assis-
tances to the managers of the general crowd gathering
places during an emergency evacuation.
Methodology
To investigate the relationship between individual char-
acteristic and an emergent decision, a study was carried
out to identify the impacts of individual cognition and
characteristics on route choice and emergent judgment.
A survey of random samples in a large market was
conducted.
Target
In this article, a supermarket named Beijing Panjiayuan
Antique trading market was chosen to carry out our
questionnaire survey in August. There are nearly 40,000
customers, 4000 merchants every weekend, and 10,000
customers every workday (Figure 1). It is the largest
antique market in China. It covers 48,500 m2 and
accommodates more than 3000 booths or merchants. A
great population density makes the region with many
hidden dangers.
Experimental design
Aiming at the relations of individual characteristics,
personalized spatial cognition, and so on, this article
carries out a questionnaire survey and meta-analysis.
The questionnaire includes 33 questions and contains
three aspects: individual characteristics, spatial cogni-
tion, and personalized decision (Appendix 1). In total,
4000 formal questionnaires were assigned in the super-
market, and respondents were asked to complete all the
33 projects.
Individual characteristics. In the different external sur-
roundings, pedestrians can form variant psychological
characteristics in emergency. The route choices are
relative to the individual characteristics. Various char-
acteristics and impact factors of respondents, like
Li
gender, age, education, and residential zone, were col-
lected in the questionnaire survey. People with different
gender, age, and background had different cognitive
ability and self-awareness, while the factor of different
living area had a subtle influence on the individual
judgment.
Spatial cognition. In addition, we also took consideration
of trip mode chosen by respondents, the route, and the
familiarity degree of the market. Judgment and ability
to adapt would decline sharply in emergency, and space
cognitive ability can dominate to induce people to
choose themselves familiar route and form individual
escape routes.
Personalized decision. To analyze the personal decision,
10 questions are designed for emergency perception.
For example, How to tell that there is an emergency if
the following conditions occur? Once there is an emer-
gency, what will you do? Which kind of routes do you
prefer to choose in emergency? Finally, an escape map
is required to draw so to get the information of each
respondent’s possible escape route.
The EECP model
Model framework
We have developed a model, called EECP model, which
reduces route complexity by creating user-specific
routes based on a prior knowledge of being familiar
with routes or landmarks. The model can also judge
which routes might be chosen based on practical visual
condition, personal feature, and spatial cognitive abil-
ity. The social psychological factors influence route pre-
ference together with the practical conditions, such as
tender, age, education level, living region, trip mode,
and visit times.
Model operates in three steps. First, collecting
known exits and route data into a personalized attri-
bute. Second, identifying the linkage between known
exits and pedestrian’s individual social and economic
factors by logistic regression. Finally, using the perso-
nalized attributes to undergo route compression and
rerouting. Then, it will give the best route by a cost
function and suggests this route to the user.
Assumptions
To facilitate crowd evacuation management during
potential emergencies, we seek to find typical behaviors
of pedestrians in the evacuation at the microscopic
level, which has been widely used to simulate pedes-
trian evacuation behavior in escaping from a building
in a fire, hurricane evacuation, and so on. And quite
3
meaningful outputs for practical application on crowd
management and evacuation planning have been pre-
sented with evacuation time estimation and analysis of
bottlenecks.
Incomplete spatial knowledge assumption. The complete
spatial knowledge assumption has been applied in most
simulation studies, but it may not be suitable for some
events in which most visitors or customers may be unfa-
miliar with the surroundings, just like a large stadium,
large trading markets, and the railway station and so on.
In contrast, the incomplete spatial knowledge
assumption, which thinks that only part of the entire
road network or landmarks could be recognized and
available by the evacuating pedestrians, was employed
in some simulation studies. These are the most distinct
routes in the cognitive map retained in people’s minds.
Meanwhile, the differences in recognizing various pas-
sages or landmarks were identified. The diversity of
spatial knowledge structure implies the possibility that
different roads or landmarks contribute different prob-
abilities to look for an escape route during evacuation.
Feinberg and Johnson17 found that the spatial knowl-
edge assumption should be considered seriously for
practical evacuation simulation models.
Personalized spatial cognition assumption. In case of a
supermarket evacuation taking place in the city, a large
population of attendants may comprise diverse groups
with different background, such as male and female,
teenager and elderly, and living nearby and afar off.
Consequently, a wide range of the attendants’ spatial
knowledge may be displayed. Thus, we assumed that
different pedestrians hold different spatial cognitions in
their minds in accordance with their backgrounds of
socio-economic situations, and therefore, each one
derives his or her individual passageway sub-network,
which may greatly have varied from one to other.
Incomplete rational decision-making. In emergency condi-
tions, many people do not acquaint the environment or
own less psychological quality, and may lose the ability
of decision-making and the basic judgment in the eva-
cuation. Once it happened, the evacuation destination
will be unconcern to the person. He may run to nearest
door, follow someone, or run along with the major.
Model
It is supposed that pedestrians are diversified decision-
makers who seek maximum utility (minimum time,
shortest distance, or level of recognition) through con-
tinuous evacuation choices (Table 1).
Traveling on a familiar route may be longer in dis-
tance or time than traveling on the most direct one.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 1. Description of variables.

Variables Elements define

Pmn Probability for person n choosing the route m

Ro Probability of the reliability of escape route (RR)
Pmn
Co Probability of the cognition (Co) for person n
Pmn
perceiving route m
ar , ac The weights of escape route reliability and cognition
RDsub
mn
Relative subjective visual distance in route m
for person n
Dsub
mn
Subjective visual distance in route m for person n
Dmn Real visual distance in route m for person n
LOCmn Crowding level for person n perceiving the route m
bd , bloc Tradeoff between taking distance and crowding level
Comn Level of cognition for person n perceiving the
route m, m 2 An
Cojn Level of cognition for person n perceiving the
Figure 2. The meaning of some variables.
route j, j 2 An
Di Real distance of link i
L Maximum perturbation of real length
voi Initial velocity for pedestrian i ar + ac = 1 ð4Þ
f Projected area for one person
rlo Density of location area for ith person bd + bloc = 1 ð5Þ
rad Density of adjacent area for ith person
w The width of passage The Pmn factor represents the probability for person
Dad Length of adjacent area n choosing the route m. Where An is the set of destina-
vM Maximum velocity of pedestrian tions for person n. The a coefficient represents the
UFm,
mn
i Level of familiarity weight of each factor in relation to other factors, and
tk , t0 Regression coefficients for level of familiarity the tradeoff between taking unfamiliar and familiar
gk , g0 Regression coefficients for cognition
routes. b is the tradeoff between taking distance and
crowding level. The Comn is the level of cognition for
person n to route m. The bd value below 0.5 indicates
Pedestrians prefer both familiar routes and shorter that the level of crowding is more important than
routes in emergency. We resolve this conflict through a distance.
linkage a between the probability of reliability of escape
route (RR) and cognition (Co) of route m. The RR is a 1. The coefficient of reliability of visual escape route
function of crowding level (LOC) and subjective visual (RRmn)
distance Dsub
mn .
The RDsub Every pedestrian perceives the travel time of links in a
mn is the relative subjective visual distance
of route m, and it can be represented as RDsub different ‘‘subjective’’ way. To do that, the length of
mn =
Dsub sub each link is perturbed in a maximum of L around its
mn =Max8 (Dkn ). The meaning of these variables is
shown in Figure 2. In the line of sight, there are k visual real length as follows
roads. The exact distance of these roads was, respec-
tively, Dan , Dbn , Dcn , . . . , Dmn , orDo1 , Do2 , Do3 , . . . , Dok Dsub
in
= Di (1 + RND(  L, L)) ð6Þ
just like those in Figure 2. The subjective visual dis-
Crowding level (LOC) is the extent of pedestrian
tances for these routes were Dsub sub sub sub
an , Dbn , Dcn , . . . , Dmn .
sub traffic congestion in evacuating case for some links
Dmn and Dmn means, respectively, the visual and subjec-
tive visual distance in route m for person n 0:8
!
1 v0i rlo w r
LOCmn = + lo ð7Þ
Pmn = ar PRR Co
ð1Þ 2 4vM rad
mn + ac Pmn

PRR sub Nf
mn = bd RDmn + bloc LOCmn r= ð8Þ
Dsub WDad
= bd mn  + bloc LOCmn ð2Þ
Max8 Dsubkn where f is the projected area for one person. rad and rlo
expðComn Þ 1 factors represent the density of adjacent area for ith
PCo
mn = P
 = P   , m 2 An person. w represents the width of passway. vM variable
exp Cojn exp Cojn  Comn
j2An j2An represents the maximum velocity. Dad is the length of
ð3Þ adjacent area.
Li 5

2. The coefficient of a Af = ½ j1 j2    jk , if jk has the J level, we

deform jk into J  1 dummy variables cku
The a is the linkage between the probability of reliabil- u 2 (1, . . . , J  1), then
ity of escape route (RR) and cognition (Co). The famil-
iarity with traffic condition could affect the choice of X
m JX
k 1

Comn = g0 + g ku cku ð13Þ

escape route in emergency. Based on our investigation
data, the familiarity was strongly related to pedes-
trians’ social and economic backgrounds (age, tender,
education, arriving mode, residential zone, etc.). The
linear regression was applied to identify the values of
Fm, i
ar and ac . We made four different levels of Umn , as
very familiar, familiar, unfamiliar, and quite unfami-
liar, and assigned the values 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0,
respectively. The ar values below 0.5 indicated that
the level of cognition is more important than practical
traffic condition
X
J 1
Fm
Umn = t0 + tk jk , i = 1, 2, 3, 4
k =1
The tk coefficients are calibrated by regression with
the data of personalized familiar level
1 Practical applications require calibration and validation
ar = PFm
mn =
 
Fm
1 + exp Umn
ac = 1  ar = 1  PFm
mn
3. The level of cognition (Co)
When searching a familiar route, we usually try to
look for some landmark in the way to the destination.
So, those landmarks are also the parts of destination
attribute. Everyone has his individual collection of per-
sonalized landmarks. The route from the starting point
to one’s personalized landmark is considered as famil-
iar, and the way from the landmark to the destination
is considered as unfamiliar.
To a pedestrian with several socio-economic attri-
butes with the construction of its spatial knowledge, the
independent variable was a vector related to the poten-
tial attributes of a pedestrian. We supposed that the K
is related to the probability of landmarks or destina-
tions being selected. Therefore, for a given landmark or
1
PFm1 mn =
1 + exp½(0:652  0:023DG + 0:01DAge  0:088DTC + 0:017DGroup + 0:011DEdu  0:004DZone)
destination, the probability of m being selected in the
condition of cognition factors is determined by the logit
function as shown in following equation
X
J 1
Comn = g0 + g k jk
k =1
k =1 u
The g ku coefficients are calibrated by binary logistic
regression based on the data of personalized
recognition.
Model implementation
The model was used as a simulation tool to analyze
Panjiayuan fairground for evacuation planning, engi-
neering design, and operation analysis from a pedes-
trian circulation. Here, we use that realistic experience
to illustrate how the microscopic cognition-based simu-
ð9Þ lation approach proposed in this article works in
practice.
Model calibration and validation
ð10Þ
of the model. At the first step, an analysis is performed
using logistic regression to calibrate the parameters of
ð11Þ model, minimizing deviations from the outputs with
respect to the known real values. The calibration
involves several parameters: g 0 (the constant) and the
g ku (the coefficient). At the second step, according to
the personalized familiar level to road network, the a,
b, and L (subjective length perception) coefficients are
calibrated.
1. Coefficients a, b, and L
The coefficient a is the weight of each factor in relation
to other factors. ar and ac are decided by the probabil-
Fm, i
ity of familiar level (Pmn ). By the linear regression, we
get the values of t0 and t k
Fm, i
X
J 1
Umn = t 0 + tk jk = 0:652  0:023DG + 0:01DAge
k =1
0:088DTC + 0:017DGroup + 0:011DEdu  0:004DZone
ar = PFm1
mn , ac = 1  ar = 1  PFm1
mn
The value of coefficient b depends on the preference
between length and crowding. We assigned 0.6 and 0.4
to bd and bloc , respectively, by our experience.
ð12Þ 2. Calibration of g ku g0
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 2. Variables in the equation for exits P1\P2\P3\P4.

Attribute Detail P1-B P2-B P3-B P4-B

Gender DG Male = 1, Female = 0 0.003 0.113 –0.065 –0.065

Age DA1 Below 18 years 0.217 0.354 –0.331 –0.522
DA2 18–30 years –0.065 –0.235 0.009 0.107
DA3 31–45 years 0.168 –0.355 0.106 –0.120
DA4 46–60 years 0.006 –0.186 0.071 0.021
Group DG1 1 person –0.017 –0.145 –0.008 0.241
DG2 2 persons –0.077 –0.079 –0.167 0.190
DG3 3 persons 0.181 0.074 0.044 0.117
Education DE1 Below undergraduate 0.337 0.136 –0.154 0.194
DE2 Undergraduate 0.580 0.053 –0.155 0.188
Zone DZ1 Within 5 km –0.680 –0.041 0.186 0.152
DZ2 5–10 km –0.362 –0.039 0.212 0.060
DZ3 10–15 km –0.659 0.012 0.183 0.223
DZ4 15–30 km –0.462 –0.027 0.316 0.120
Mode DV
DV(1) Car 0.397 –0.428 0.705 1.395
DV(2) Subway 1.372 0.403 –1.132 –0.638
DV(3) Tricycle 0.287 –0.109 0.158 0.378
DV(4) Bus 1.336 –0.173 –0.998 –1.105
DV(5) Bicycle 0.525 0.053 –0.250 0.283
DV(6) Electric bicycle 0.455 0.028 –0.050 0.299
DV(7) Walking –0.122 –0.095 –0.108 –0.237
Year DTC
DTC(1) Below 1 year –0.767 0.697 –0.609 0.341
DTC(2) 1–3 years –0.024 0.007 –0.214 –0.070
DTC(3) Above 3 years –0.079 –0.057 –0.017 0.009
Constant –0.044 –0.875 –1.154 –1.234

Variable(s) entered in step 1: DG, DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4, DG1, DG2, DG3, DE1, DE2, DZ1, DZ2, DZ3, DZ4, DZ5, DV, and DTC.

Under emergency conditions, pedestrians’ route choice
may be different when they are facing different passa-
geways, it is crucial to estimate which social and eco-
nomic factors determine the pedestrian route choice
preference.
First, we choose some socio-economic factors (age,
gender, times, group, education, arrival mode, and resi-
dential zone) as the alternative independent variables.
The destinations or landmarks are chosen as dependent
variables. To solve Comn , we turned some factors into
dummy variables according to every factor’s definition.
For instance, in the questionnaire, the factor ‘‘age’’ is
divided into five categories: below 18, 18–30, 31–45, 46–
60, and over 60 years. So, we turned the factor ‘‘age’’
into four dummy variables cku (DA1, DA2, DA3, and
DA4). Then, we choose SPSS to analyze the correlation
between socio-economic factors and their routes. The
chi-square test is chosen to measure the correlation
scale between the dependent variables and independent
variables and to tell which independent variables are
obviously relational (Table 2).
Model application
The model describes pedestrian activity and route
choice for different types of pedestrians with distinct
cognition. Contrary to traditional approaches, more
subjective and personalized factors were considered in
the model. Applications of the model will be manifold.
For one thing, the approach can model choice behavior
in pedestrian simulation. Stand-alone applications of
the model will be possible to predict choice probability
of destination in large public places, such as railway
stations, exhibition centers, and stadiums and super-
markets. Such a model is not only valuable to know
emergency decision-making behavior but also to reveal
the bottlenecks in infrastructure design. For instance,
the example of Panjiayuan Antique market shows the
ideal passageway width for emergency. In this way,
infrastructure layout, escape signs, and method of
organization can be optimized. This pertains to regular
circumstances, as well as to emergency conditions.
Practical application of this model requires a supple-
mentary investigation to personalized cognition and
calibration of the model. This can be done by current
empirical studies, which show the importance of differ-
ent route attributes for differential personalized cogni-
tion, and subsequently estimate the relevant weights
and the final choice probability based on objective envi-
ronment and subjective cognition. In fact, distance
(travel time), level of crowding, and cognition are quite
important in our investigation, and we expect to
Li 7

Figure 3. Nodes and links in a scenario example.

Table 3. The feature of the nth person.

Gender Age Group Education Zone Modes Duration Original location

Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dummy VA DG DA3 DG2 DE2 DZ1 DV4 DTC2
Category 1 3 2 2 1 4 2
Detail Male 35 2 persons Undergraduate Within 5 km Bus 1–3 years Node 16

Table 4. Brief calculation for the nth person.

Exit Co RR Probability Route

P1 0.629 0.575 0.600 16-M2-15-14-13-M1-P1

P2 0.285 0.477 0.386 16-18-M3-P2
P3 0.237 0.240 0.238 16-18-19-20-23-25-M4-P3
P4 0.251 0.431 0.345 16-18-19-24-M5-P4

classify the public places based on pedestrian attribu-
tion and pedestrian agglomeration feature.
To solve this problem, we simplified the large trad-
ing market into a network diagram (Figure 3), which
included common nodes, landmark nodes, links, and
exits. The circle shape represents common nodes, and
the square shape denotes landmark nodes. The triangle
represents the exits (P1, P2, P3, and P4). The gray areas
mean the market trading area or hall.
In the present brief calculation, we chose the nth
person, who had the social and economic feature (in
Tables 3 and 4)
Simulation result
In order to estimate the effect of modeling evacuation,
we took the simulation of evacuation as the example.
Figure 4 shows the distribution graph of Beijing
Panjiayuan Antique market. Two simple testing
schemes were built. We simultaneously loaded 4750
persons in the market based on the data of our investi-
gation. Scheme 1 (S1) simulated evacuation based on
shortest route and supposed that 30% persons would
think about the crowding. It was more ideal simulation
in S1, because every person knew the shortest evacua-
tion route. By contrast, scheme 2 (S2) was built based
on our EECP model.
It was demonstrated in Figures 7 and 8 that the way
the pedestrians choose their routes toward their desti-
nations. And it was demonstrated that the place of the
maximum density in evacuation was disappeared for S1
and S2 in Figures 5 and 6. From Figures 9–11, compar-
ison of flow rate, averaged distance, averaged speed,
and journey time between S1 and S2 were listed.
In Figure 12, the journey time distribution was
demonstrated for S1 and S2. We chose the north door
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 4. Layout of Beijing Panjiayuan market, 2013.
Figure 5. Cumulative maximum density for S1.
Figure 6. Cumulative maximum density for S2 (EECP model).
Figure 7. Evacuation route for S1.
Figure 8. Evacuation for S2 (EECP model).
area (toward P1), the northwest door area (toward P2),
the west door area (toward P3), and the southwest area
(toward P4) to research the risk area in an evacuation
(Table 5). In Figure 13, it was illuminated that the evacua-
tion density and speed change over time for S1 and S2.
Discussion
The classical algorithm of way-finding based on the
direction and optimal utility to the destination or land-
mark sometimes failed to give a reasonable route at the
macroscopic scale. As the simulation results shown in
Figures 5–14, we found that although most pedestrians
expect to find the shortest route to escape, they pre-
ferred a familiar and uncrowded route, while most
routes usually had less difference to each other. By con-
sidering the personal factors, the EECP model can bal-
ance the influence of differentiated cognition of various
pedestrians against the practical evacuating state and
surroundings.
The durations of two strategies of evacuation simula-
tion were 1564.8 s (26.08 min) and 1125.6 s (18.76 min),
Li 9

Figure 9. (continued)
10
Figure 9. Averaged flow rates for S1 and S2.
respectively, and in both of schemes, 90% people
escaped the market within 720 s.
1. Journey time and averaged journey time
As illustrated in Figure 12, pedestrians’ averaged jour-
ney time toward P1 was significantly higher than other
exits in S1, and the largest journey time was 723 s, and
the highest averaged journey time was 382 s. The pedes-
trian averaged journey time in exit P2 was 220 s, and it
was much less than 130 s in exits P3 and P4. For simu-
lation of S2, the averaged journey time among four
exits was well balanced. The pedestrians’ averaged jour-
ney time in exits P1, P2, and P3 were 250, 212, and
208 s, respectively, and it was 344 s in exit P4. The main
reason was that parts of pedestrians at southeast area
chose exits P3 and P4 to avoid the crowding and panic.
2. Density and risk analysis
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Based on the layout of exits, if only in consideration of
the trip distance, exit P1 may be better for most people.
By simulation, 57.2% of people chose exit P1 to be an
evacuating destination in S1, and the percentage of
people choosing exit P4 was only 6.85%. It made the
passage in southern area of the market to be seldom
used in emergency, in contrast, exits P1 and P2 were
hot points and very crowded. The averaged maximum
density reached 1.95 p/m2, and the local instantaneous
maximum density was 4.15 p/m2.
It was obtained from our EECP model that pedes-
trian route choice could be optimized. 36.09% people
chose exit P1, and 25.15% and 22.42% people chose
the exits P2 and P4, respectively. The percentage of peo-
ple choosing exit P3 was 16.34%. In the simulation of
S2, the maximum density was 3.94 p/m2 and was little
lower than that in S1. According to the high density of
S1 and S2, the exits P1 and P2 were very crowded and
the duration of high density was 249 s in S1, but it was
only 179.4 s in S2.
Li 11

Figure 10. (continued)

12
Figure 10. Averaged distance for S1 and S2.
For S1, the dangerous places were the area of exits
P1 and P2, and the averaged density was 1.98 p/m2 that
far exceeded alert threshold of 1.33 p/m2 (0.75 m2/p) in
outdoor events. Once there was any emergency, stam-
pede may be happened just like historical bitter prece-
dent. These events and states should be avoided at any
time and any place. By the simulation of S2, parts of
the pedestrians prefer the most suitable routes rather
than shortest one basing on their personalized factors
and cognition degree to the surroundings. This conclu-
sion was consistent with the fact, showing in our inves-
tigation that 62% of people would choose the most
familiar routes rather than the shortest ones. Compared
to S1, the pedestrians’ averaged density of exits P1, P2,
P3, and P4 in S2 decreased obviously, the maximum
density was only 1.18 p/m2, and stampede risk could be
significantly reduced. Also, the evacuation speed of
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
areas of the north door and northwest door sharply
increased, evacuation was much easier than others.
Summary and future work
In our article, subjective and objective factors had been
integrated to judge the possibility of exit choice by the
pedestrians. This article put forward an EECP model
based on the assumptions that each pedestrian had his
own subjective cognition, incomplete spatial knowl-
edge, and incomplete rational decision-making. The
principles of an algorithm for personalized route choice
preference calculation were then proposed. The algo-
rithm used additional data supported by our question-
naire. In emergency, people would choose their routes
by diversity of spatial cognition. They correspondingly
searched their personalized spatial cognitive pathway
Li 13

Figure 11. (continued)

14 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 11. Advanced averaged entity speed of exits P1, P2, P3, and P4 for S1 and S2.

Table 5. Evacuation data contrasting S2 with S1.

Scheme 1 Scheme 2

Exit Percent Speed Distance Journey time Percent Speed Distance Journey time
P1 57.24 1.57 125.68 189.78 36.09 1.61 118.43 159.23
P2 24.33 1.46 78.84 131.61 25.15 1.52 115.39 156.37
P3 11.59 1.83 60.39 103.63 16.34 1.80 140.80 169.20
P4 6.85 1.77 85.41 114.03 22.42 1.68 206.51 232.43
Averaged 1.59 103.96 160.46 1.63 140.62 175.99

network to look for a route to the destination by their
practical visual condition and personal behavior pat-
tern. The multivariate binary logistic regression method
was applied to identify the linkage between the selected
factors and the response variable quantitatively. The
EECP model could predict the choosing probability,
while someone was in a certain position and going to
choose some destinations or landmarks in emergency.
There are many public places with crowded pedes-
trians, each group of them owns distinctive feature.
Frankly speaking, many participants in those places
are not familiar with the district, because they are just
visitors or newcomers to the areas. Only some obvious
landmarks or passages could be available from the
selection set. When walking to a destination, you could
only be acquainted with some intermediate points, and
each one would have different choice. In future, differ-
ent questionnaires should be carried out in different
places. The EECP model still needs to be improved in
studying the practical route finding logics of human
Li 15

Figure 12. (continued)

16 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 12. Averaged flow rates for S1 and S2.

Figure 13. Frequency distribution of journey time for S1 and S2.

Li 17

Figure 14. (continued)

18
Figure 14. Speed and density contrast in area of P1 (north door) and P2 (northwest door) for S1 and S2.
beings and conducting pedestrian behavior rules. Also,
further psychology impacts should be researched in
depth. We assumption that no one came in after warn-
ing. When the emergency occurred, people may not be
aware of the situation on time and would still get into
the area. Thus, whether the pedestrian behaviors would
be affected should be investigate in future study.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
References
1. Lo SM, Fang Z and Chen D. Use of a modified network
model for analyzing evacuation patterns in high-risk
buildings. J Architect Eng 2001; 7: 21–31.
2. Lindell MK and Prater CS. Critical behavioral assump-
tions in evacuation time estimate analysis for private
vehicles: example from hurricane research and planning.
J Urban Plan D: ASCE 2007; 133: 18–29.
3. Tang TQ, Chen L, Guo RY, et al. An evacuation model
accounting for elementary students’ individual proper-
ties. Physica A 2015; 440: 49–56.
4. Tang TQ, Shao YX and Chen L. Modeling pedestrian
movement at the hall of high-speed railway station
during the check-in process. Physica A 2017; 467:
157–166.
5. Pel J, Bliemer MCJ and Hoogendoorn SP. A review on
travel behavior modelling in dynamic traffic simulation
models for evacuations. Transportation 2012; 39: 97–123.
Li
6. Guo RY, Huang HJ and Wong SC. Collection, spillback,
and dissipation in pedestrian evacuation: a network-
based method. Transport Res B: Meth 2011; 45: 490–506.
7. Nagai R, Fukamachi M and Nagatani T. Evacuation of
crawlers and walkers from corridor through an exit. Phy-
sica A 2006; 367: 449–460.
8. Pan X, Han C, Dauber K, et al. A multi-agent based
framework for the simulation of human and social beha-
viors during emergency evacuations. AI Soc 2007; 22:
113–132.
9. Xi H and Son YJ. Two-level modeling framework for
pedestrian route choice and walking behaviors. Simulat
Model Pract Theor 2012; 22: 28–46.
10. Nagatani T and Nagai R. Statistical characteristics of
evacuation without visibility in random walk model. Phy-
sica A 2004; 341: 638–686.
11. Hyoung T and JoonhoKo TG. Maximum likelihood and
firth logistic regression of the pedestrian route choice. Int
Regional Sci Rev. Epub ahead of print 26 January 2016.
DOI: 10.1177/0160017615626214.
12. Arai K and Sang TX. Multi agent-based rescue simula-
tion for disable persons with the help from volunteers in
19
emergency situations. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 2012; 3:
1543–1547.
13. Goetz M. Using crowdsourced indoor geodata for the
creation of a three-dimensional indoor routing web appli-
cation. Future Internet 2012; 4: 575–591.
14. Sokhansefat G, Delavar M and Banedj-Schafii M. Multi-
agent simulation of wayfinding for rescue operation dur-
ing building fire. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Tech 2012; 72:
1204–1212.
15. Hajibabai L, Delavar M, Malek M, et al. Agent-based
simulation of spatial cognition and wayfinding in build-
ing fire emergency evacuation. In: Li J, Zlatanova S and
Fabbri AG (eds) Geomatics solutions for disaster manage-
ment. Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp.255–270.
16. Canca D, Zarzo A, Algaba E, et al. Macroscopic
attraction-based simulation of pedestrian mobility: a
dynamic individual route-choice approach. Eur J Oper
Res 2013; 231: 428–442.
17. Feinberg WE and Johnson NR. FIRESCAP: a computer
simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J Math
Sociol 1995; 20: 247–269.
20 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Appendix

█ᇦഝᰗ䍗ᐲ൪୶ᡧ䈳ḕ䰞ধ
ѪҶᴤྭҶ䀓█ᇦഝᰗ䍗ᐲ൪୶ᡧⲴ⧠⣦Ӕ䙊⢩ᖱǃሩӪ⍱䳶ѝ४ฏ䘋㹼ᆹ‫ޘ‬㇑⨶ˈ⢩֌↔
䈳ḕˈ䉒䉒䝽ਸDŽ

1ǃᙗ࡛ Gender
A ⭧ B ྣ
2ǃᒤ喴 Age
A ሿҾ 18 ኱ C 31-45 ኱
B 18-30 ኱ D46-60 ኱
E >60 ኱
3ǃᛘⲴ≁᯿(nationalities) ᡧ㉽ൠ(domicile) ൘ᵜᐲ൪㓿㩕ᒤ䲀
(operation years) ᒤ(years)
㓿㩕୶૱⿽㊫
4ǃᛘᱟ˖ Aǃ඀ᓇ୶ᡧ Bǃ᩺ս୶ᡧ
5ǃа㡜ઘ‫ ࡠ⛩ࠐޝ‬When do you work until in Saturday˛         DŽ
6ǃ֐а㡜ᱟࠐњӪа䎧ᶕᐲ൪˛How many people do you arrive at the market together with?
Aǃ1 Ӫ 1 person
Bǃ2 Ӫ 2 persons
Cǃ3 Ӫ 3 persons
DǃަԆ other
7ǃᮉ㛢≤ᒣ Level of education
Aǃ儈ѝ৺ԕл High school Cǃ⹄ウ⭏৺ԕк Postgraduate
Bǃབྷᆖ Undergraduate
8ǃ֐ᡰትտ४ฏս㖞 residential zone
෾ᐲ(City)˖ ४৯(District)˖ ሿ४ᡆ䚃䐟(area or road)˖

9ǃᛘ⇿ཙࡠ䗮ᐲ൪৺䘀䗃䍗⢙䟷⭘ⲴӔ䙊ᐕާ˖The vehicles which you use to reach the market

every?
Aǃሿ⊭䖖ᡆ䶒व䖖 A car or a van Dǃ‫ޜ‬Ӕ䖖ˈ㓯䐟˖䐟 Bus line
Bǃൠ䫱żेĺইᯩੁ Eǃ㠚㹼䖖 Bicycle
żইĺेᯩੁ Fǃ⭥ࣘ㠚㹼䖖 Electric bicycle
Subway (different direction) Gǃ↕㹼 Walking
Cǃй䖞䖖 tricycle Hǃࠪ』䖖 Taxi
10ǃᛘࡠ䗮ᐲ൪㓿䗷Ⲵѫ㾱䚃䐟਽〠˖
˄ਟཊ䘹˅
The main roads you pass, when you arrive at the market.
Aǃ█ᇦഝ䐟 Panjiayuan Road Eǃ↖൓䐟 Wusheng Road
Bǃॾေ䐟 Huawei Road Fǃॾေই䐟 Huawei South Road
Cǃьй⧟䐟 East Third Ring Road Gǃᶮᾶই䐟 Songyu South Road
Dǃᶮᾶे䐟 Songyu North Road Hǃ█ᇦഝь䐟 Panjiayuan East Road
11ǃሩᐲ൪޵䜘䚃䐟৺ࠪ‫ޕ‬ਓ⟏ᚹᛵߥ
How are you familiar to these inner roads and exits of market?
Aǃ䶎ᑨ⟏ᚹ Very familiar Cǃа㡜 Ordinary
Bǃ䖳Ѫ⟏ᚹ More familiar Dǃн⟏ᚹ Unfamiliar
Li 21

12ǃሩᐲ൪ઘ䗩䚃䐟⟏ᚹᛵߥ
How are you familiar to exterior roads of market?
Aǃ䶎ᑨ⟏ᚹ Very familiar Cǃа㡜 Ordinary
Bǃ䖳Ѫ⟏ᚹ More familiar Dǃн⟏ᚹ Unfamiliar
13ǃлࡇଚ⿽ᶑԦਁ⭏ˈ֐⴨ؑᴹ㍗ᙕᛵߥ˛˄ਟཊ䘹˅
Which of the following conditions occur, you believe that there is an emergency?
AǃᴹӪབྷ༠બ஺ᣕ䆖 Someone shout loudly and alarm
Bǃᣕ䆖ಘ૽䎧 Alarm rang
Cǃ㠚ᐡⴻࡠᴹ✏䴮ㅹн↓ᑨᛵߥ Saw smoke and other abnormal conditions
DǃⴻࡠᖸཊӪੁ䰘ਓ䐁 Saw a lot of people to run to the door
14ǃྲ᷌֐᜿䇶ࡠᴹ㍗ᙕᛵߥਁ⭏ˈ֐ՊᘾѸ‫˛ڊ‬
How would you react if you realize that there may be an emergency?
Aǃ䐏䲿㴲ᤕⲴӪ㗔а䎧䐁 Follow the rushing crowds
Bǃ䐏䲿䆖ሏᡆӪ㗔㇑⨶㘵Ⲵᤷᕅ Follow the instructions from the police or the crowd
managers
Cǃቍ䈅㠚ᐡራ᢮䚃䐟 Try to find ways by yourself
15ǃ൘㍗ᙕ䘳⭏Ⲵᛵߥлˈ֐ᴤௌ⅒䘹ᤙӰѸṧⲴ䚃䐟
What kind of roads you would prefer to choose to evacuation from the emergency?
Aǃᴰ⟏ᚹⲴѫ㾱䚃䐟 Most familiar major roads
Bǃᴰ⸝Ⲵ䐟ᖴ Shortest route
Cǃᴰ䘁Ⲵਟ㜭ᱟ䶎ᑨᤕᥔ䚃䐟 The nearest, and probably the crowded roads
DǃᶕᰦⲴ䚃䐟 The roads through which you came here
16ǃᖃ֐䶒ሩ 2 ᶑਟ䘹䚃䐟ᰦˈ֐ਟ㜭Պ䘹ᤙଚањ˛
Which could you choose when you are facing two available roads?
Aǃⴻ䎧ᶕ䙊ᖰࠪਓᯩੁⲴаᶑ䚃䐟 Bǃḷ⌘ࠪਓᯩੁⲴ䚃䐟
The one looks like leading to the exits. The one heading the direction of the exit
Cǃԫ᜿䘹ᤙаᶑ䚃䐟 DǃӪཊⲴ䚃䐟
Any way. The road using by a lot of people
17ǃ㍗ᙕᛵߥਁ⭏൘⿫֐ᴰ䘁४ฏˈ֐Պྲօ䘹ᤙ
How do you do when an emergency occurs in the areas closest to you?
Aǃ᤯кབྷ䜘࠶䍥䟽⢙૱ˈ❦ਾࠪ䰘 Take most of the valuables, and then go out
BǃӰѸҏн㇑ˈⴤ᧕䐁ࡠ䇔Ѫᆹ‫Ⲵޘ‬ൠᯩ Escape to a safe place right now
Cǃ䲿᡻᤯к䓛䗩Ⲵ䍥䟽⢙૱ࠪ䰘 Pick on the valuables and go out
Dǃ䬱кᓇ䶒ˈ❦ਾࠪ䰘 Lock the store, and then go out
18ǃ㍗ᙕᛵߥਁ⭏ਾˈ֐㿹ᗇ৫ଚ䟼ᴰᆹ‫ޘ‬
Once the emergency occurs, where is the most safe place do you think?
Aǃ䘳ࠪᐲ൪བྷ䰘ਓਾˈ㿲ᵋ Get out the exits of the market, and watching
Bǃ䘹ᤙԫ᜿ᯩੁˈ䗵䙏⿫ᔰ४ฏ 500 ㊣ Escape toward any direction, and leave area 500 meters
quickly
Cǃ䘹ᤙԫ᜿ᯩੁˈ䗵䙏⿫ᔰ४ฏ 1 ‫ޜ‬䟼—2 ‫ޜ‬䟼 Escape toward any direction, and leave area
1-2km quickly
Dǃഎᇦᡆ㘵৫Ḁњ᰾⺞Ⲵൠᯩ Escape toward home or some special place
22 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

19ǃྲ᷌⮿ᮓѝˈ֐઼਼դ䎠ᮓˈ֐ՊᘾѸ‫ڊ‬
How do you do when you got separated with you partner in emergency?
Aǃ㠚ᐡ䗵䙏⿫ᔰড䲙ൠᑖˈ⴨਼ؑդҏ㜭ཏᆹ‫ࠪޘ‬৫ leave the danger zone quickly, and
believe that companion also can go out safely.
Bǃ䘄എራ᢮਼դ Return to looking for companions
CǃԫࠝӪ㗔ᤕᥔˈ൘৏ൠબ஺ㅹᖵ Cry and wait in situ
20ǃ൘ᤕᥔⲴࠪ‫ޕ‬ਓ४ฏˈ䶒ሩӪ㗔㴲ᤕᥔ൘ࠪਓࡽ䶒ˈᛘՊᘾѸ‫˛ڊ‬
What do you do when you are facing that people crowded in front of the export in a crowded
exits area?
AǃᴽӾ㇑⨶ӪઈⲴ⮿ሬˈ亪⅑䙊䗷ࠪਓ Obey the management guidance, go through exits
progressively
Bǃҹਆ㠚ᐡ‫ݸ‬㹼䘳⿫ࠪਓ Try oneself best to escape from exits
Cǃབྷ༠બ஺ˈ䇙བྷᇦߧ䶉ˈ㓴㓷བྷᇦ亪⅑䙊䗷 Cry out, let everybody calm, and organize crowd
go through progressively
21ǃᛘ䇔Ѫਁ⭏㍗ᙕᛵߥлˈлࡇᆹ‫᧚ޘ‬ᯭଚњᴰ䟽㾱˛
Which of the following security measures are the most important in an emergency?
Aǃᒯ᫝⮿ሬˈᤷሬབྷᇦ⮿ᮓˈᒦ᫝᭮ᛵߥ Channel crowd by broadcasting, guiding people to
evacuate, and broadcast stats
Bǃᴹу䰘Ӫ༛ᤷᥕ⮿ሬ Special command guidance
Cǃᴹ᰾⺞Ⲵࠪ‫ޕ‬ਓ⮿ሬḷ䇶 Clear exit channel marks
22ǃ㍗ᙕᛵߥਁ⭏ᰦˈ֐ᱟ੖Պᴹԕл㹼Ѫ˛˄ਟཊ䘹˅
What might you do when an emergency occur?
Aǃᜣ࣎⌅ቭᘛ⿫ᔰড䲙४ฏ To find a way to leave the danger zone as soon as possible
Bǃᢃ⭥䈍ᣕ䆖ᡆ䙊⸕ᐲ൪㇑⨶Ӫઈ Call the police or inform the market management
Cǃ᣽➗ǃᖅ‫ۿ‬ᡆਁᗞঊ Photo, video, or twitter
Dǃ⭥䈍䙊⸕㠚ᐡ୶ᡧᴻ৻ቭᘛ᫔⿫ Call their merchants friends leave as soon as possible
23ǃ൘⮿ᮓѝˈԕлਟ㜭࿘⺽ᛘ⮿ᮓ䙏ᓖⲴഐ㍐৺᧚ᯭᛘՊ䘹ᤙ˛˄ਟཊ䘹˅
In the evacuation, what factors can hinder you evacuate speed, and how do you deal with it?
Aǃ䲿䓛㛼व䍏㍟ˈᢄᦹ㛼व A heavy backpack, threw off his pack
BǃᴹӪ䐁Ⲵ䗷ធˈ᧘ᥔ䈕Ӫ֯㠚ᐡ䎵䗷 Someone ran too slowly, I might push and past him
Cǃᴹ䍥䟽⢙૱Ⲵ㛼वᦹҶˈ‫ڌ‬л䘄എራ᢮ Lost the valuables backpack, return for it
DǃḀ䙊䚃䰘ᵚᔰˈ֯⭘᳤࣋⹨ᔰ Using violence to hit closed door
Eǃᴹሿᆙᆀ᢮нࡠᇦӪ൘ଝˈᣡ䎧ᆙᆀа䎧䐁 Looking some small crying child who can't find
the family, you may pick up the child run together
FǃⴻࡠᴹӪӽ൘䘶㹼ˈ࣍䱫Ԇ䎦㍗ੁཆ䐁 when seeing someone still retrograde, dissuade him
to run quickly
 Li

33ǃḷࠪᛘᡰ൘Ⲵս㖞ˈ⭫ࠪ㍗ᙕᛵߥਟ㜭Ⲵ䘳⭏䐟㓯ˈTo mark where you are and draw possible escape routes in the emergency.
ᒦḷࠪᛘ䇔Ѫᆹ‫ⲴⴞⲴޘ‬ൠս㖞DŽMark the safe destination position that you may perceive.

ϰ

23