The aim of this study was to model the egress of visitors from a Neolithic visitor attraction.
Background:
Tourism attracts increasing numbers of elderly and mobility-impaired visitors to our built-environment heritage sites. Some such sites have very limited and awkward access, were not designed for mass visitation, and may not be modifiable to facilitate disabled access. As a result, emergency evacuation planning must take cognizance of robust information, and in this study we aimed to establish the effect of visitor position on egress.
Method:
Direct observation of three tours at Maeshowe, Orkney, informed typical time of able-bodied individuals and a mobility-impaired person through the 10-m access tunnel. This observation informed the design of egress and evacuation models running on the Unity gaming platform.
Results:
A slow-moving person at the observed speed typically increased time to safety of 20 people by 170% and reduced the advantage offered by closer tunnel separation by 26%. Using speeds for size-specific characters of 50th, 95th, and 99th percentiles increased time to safety in emergency evacuation by 51% compared with able-bodied individuals.
Conclusion:
Larger individuals may slow egress times of a group; however, a single slow-moving mobility-impaired person exerts a greater influence on group egress, profoundly influencing those behind.
Application:
Unidirectional routes in historic buildings and other visitor attractions are vulnerable to slow-moving visitors during egress. The model presented in this study is scalable, is applicable to other buildings, and can be used as part of a risk assessment and emergency evacuation plan in future work.
ArielyD.ZakayD. (2008). A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 108, 187–207.
2.
Auf der HeideE. (2006). The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 47, 34–49.
3.
BohannonR. W. (1997). Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20–79 years: Reference values and determinants. Age and Ageing, 26, 15–19.
4.
BrosseauM.ZangenehpourS.SaunierN.MorenoL. M. (2013). The impact of waiting time and other factors on dangerous pedestrian crossings and violations at signalized intersections: A case study in Montreal. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 21, 159–172.
5.
ChittaroL. (2012). Passengers’ safety in aircraft evacuations: Employing serious games to educate and persuade. In BangM.RagnemalmE. (Eds.), Persuasive technology: Design for health and safety (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7284, pp. 215–226). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
6.
ChristensenK. M.BlairM. E.HoltJ. M. (2007). The built environment, evacuations, and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 249–254.
7.
ChuM. L.ParigiP.LawK. H.LatombeJ.-C. (2015). Simulating individual, group, and crowd behaviours in building egress. Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 9, 825–845.
8.
DeyD. K.RothenbergE.SundhV.BosaeusI.SteenB. (2001). Height and body weight in elderly adults: A 21-year population study on secular trends and related factors in 70-year-olds. Journal of Gerontology: Series A, 56, M780–M784.
9.
FruinJ. J. (1971). Designing for pedestrians: A level-of-service concept. Highway Research Record (Issue No. 355). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Highway Research Board.
10.
GaleaE. R.FilppidisL.WangZ.LawrenceP. J.EwerJ. (2011). Evacuation analysis of 1000+ seat blended wing body aircraft configurations: Computer simulations and full-scale evacuation experiment. In Peacock et al.R. D. (Eds.), Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics (pp. 151–161). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9725-8_14
11.
GinnisA. I.KostasK. V.PolitisC. G.KaklisP. D. (2010). VELOS: A VR platform for ship evacuation analysis. Computer-Aided Design, 42, 1045–1058.
12.
GuestJ.EaglinT.SubramanianK.RibarskyW. (2015). Interactive analysis and visualization of situationally aware building evacuations. Information Visualization, 14, 204–222.
HelbingD.FarkasT.VicsekT. (2000). Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407, 487–490.
15.
JangS.BaiB.HuC.WuC.-M.E. (2009). Affect, travel motivation, and travel intention: A senior market. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 51–73.
16.
KamkarianP.HexmoorH. (2014). Exploiting the Imperialist Competition algorithm to determine exit door efficacy for public buildings. Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 90, 24–51.
17.
MawsonA. R. (2005). Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry, 68, 95–113.
18.
ParisiD. R.DorsoC. O. (2005). Microscopic dynamics of pedestrian evacuation. Physica A, 354, 606–618.
19.
RitterF. E.SchoellesM. J.QuigleyK. S.KleinL. C. (2011). Determining the number of model runs: Treating cognitive models as theories by not sampling their behavior. In RothrockL.NarayananS. (Eds.), Human-in-the-loop simulations: Methods and practice (pp. 97–116). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
20.
RobinsonS. J. (2012). When disaster strikes: Human behaviour in emergency situations. Journal of the Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management. Retrieved from http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/9573
SekulerA. B.BennettP. J. (2000). Effects of aging on useful field of view. Experimental Aging Research, 26, 103–120.
23.
SpeersR. A.KuoA. D.HorakF. B. (2002). Contributions of altered sensation and feedback responses to changes in coordination of postural control due to aging. Gait and Posture, 16, 20–30.
24.
SpyropoulosP.PisciottaJ. C.PavlouK. N.CairnsM. A.SimonS. R. (1991). Biomechanical gait analysis in obese men. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 72, 1065–1070.
25.
StewartA.LedinghamR.FurnaceG.NevillA. (2015). Body size and ability to pass through a restricted space: Observations from 3D scanning of 210 male UK offshore workers. Applied Ergonomics, 51, 358–362.
26.
StillG. K. (2007). Review of pedestrian and evacuation simulations. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 3, 376–388.
27.
StrumR.HattoriA. (2013). Morbid obesity rates continue to rise rapidly in the United States. International Journal of Obesity, 37, 889–891.
28.
SwinburnB. A.SacksG.HallK. D.McPhersonK.FinegoodD. T.MoodieM. L.GortmakerS. L. (2011). The global obesity pandemic: Shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet, 378, 804–814.
VanemE.SkjongR. (2006). Designing for safety in passenger ships utilizing advanced evacuation analyses: A risk-based approach. Safety Science, 44, 111–135.
31.
WangY, C.McPhersonK.MarshT.GortmakerS. L.BrownM. (2011). Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and UK. Lancet, 378, 815–825.
32.
WattsJ. M. (2001). Fire protection performance evaluation for historic buildings. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 11, 197–207.
33.
WilsonL.RawlinsonA.MitchellD. S.McGregorH. C.ParsonsR. (2013). The Scottish Ten project: Collaborative heritage documentation. In GrussenmeyerP. (Ed.), International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences (Vol. XL-5/W2, pp. 685–690). Retrieved from https://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-5-W2/685/2013/
34.
ZoumpoulakiA.AvradinisN.VosinakisS. (2010). A multi-agent simulation framework for emergency evacuations incorporating personality and emotions. In KonstantopoulosS.PerantonisS.KarkaletsisV.SpyropoulosC. D.VourosG. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence: Theories, models and applications (Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 6040, pp. 423–428). New York, NY: Springer.
