Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
gender, age, education, and residential zone, were col- meaningful outputs for practical application on crowd
lected in the questionnaire survey. People with different management and evacuation planning have been pre-
gender, age, and background had different cognitive sented with evacuation time estimation and analysis of
ability and self-awareness, while the factor of different bottlenecks.
living area had a subtle influence on the individual
judgment. Incomplete spatial knowledge assumption. The complete
spatial knowledge assumption has been applied in most
simulation studies, but it may not be suitable for some
Spatial cognition. In addition, we also took consideration events in which most visitors or customers may be unfa-
of trip mode chosen by respondents, the route, and the miliar with the surroundings, just like a large stadium,
familiarity degree of the market. Judgment and ability large trading markets, and the railway station and so on.
to adapt would decline sharply in emergency, and space In contrast, the incomplete spatial knowledge
cognitive ability can dominate to induce people to assumption, which thinks that only part of the entire
choose themselves familiar route and form individual road network or landmarks could be recognized and
escape routes. available by the evacuating pedestrians, was employed
in some simulation studies. These are the most distinct
Personalized decision. To analyze the personal decision, routes in the cognitive map retained in people’s minds.
10 questions are designed for emergency perception. Meanwhile, the differences in recognizing various pas-
For example, How to tell that there is an emergency if sages or landmarks were identified. The diversity of
the following conditions occur? Once there is an emer- spatial knowledge structure implies the possibility that
gency, what will you do? Which kind of routes do you different roads or landmarks contribute different prob-
prefer to choose in emergency? Finally, an escape map abilities to look for an escape route during evacuation.
is required to draw so to get the information of each Feinberg and Johnson17 found that the spatial knowl-
respondent’s possible escape route. edge assumption should be considered seriously for
practical evacuation simulation models.
Assumptions Model
To facilitate crowd evacuation management during It is supposed that pedestrians are diversified decision-
potential emergencies, we seek to find typical behaviors makers who seek maximum utility (minimum time,
of pedestrians in the evacuation at the microscopic shortest distance, or level of recognition) through con-
level, which has been widely used to simulate pedes- tinuous evacuation choices (Table 1).
trian evacuation behavior in escaping from a building Traveling on a familiar route may be longer in dis-
in a fire, hurricane evacuation, and so on. And quite tance or time than traveling on the most direct one.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
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
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 cognition. Contrary to traditional approaches, more
may be different when they are facing different passa- subjective and personalized factors were considered in
geways, it is crucial to estimate which social and eco- the model. Applications of the model will be manifold.
nomic factors determine the pedestrian route choice For one thing, the approach can model choice behavior
preference. in pedestrian simulation. Stand-alone applications of
First, we choose some socio-economic factors (age, the model will be possible to predict choice probability
gender, times, group, education, arrival mode, and resi- of destination in large public places, such as railway
dential zone) as the alternative independent variables. stations, exhibition centers, and stadiums and super-
The destinations or landmarks are chosen as dependent markets. Such a model is not only valuable to know
variables. To solve Comn , we turned some factors into emergency decision-making behavior but also to reveal
dummy variables according to every factor’s definition. the bottlenecks in infrastructure design. For instance,
For instance, in the questionnaire, the factor ‘‘age’’ is the example of Panjiayuan Antique market shows the
divided into five categories: below 18, 18–30, 31–45, 46– ideal passageway width for emergency. In this way,
60, and over 60 years. So, we turned the factor ‘‘age’’ infrastructure layout, escape signs, and method of
into four dummy variables cku (DA1, DA2, DA3, and organization can be optimized. This pertains to regular
DA4). Then, we choose SPSS to analyze the correlation circumstances, as well as to emergency conditions.
between socio-economic factors and their routes. The Practical application of this model requires a supple-
chi-square test is chosen to measure the correlation mentary investigation to personalized cognition and
scale between the dependent variables and independent calibration of the model. This can be done by current
variables and to tell which independent variables are empirical studies, which show the importance of differ-
obviously relational (Table 2). ent route attributes for differential personalized cogni-
tion, and subsequently estimate the relevant weights
and the final choice probability based on objective envi-
Model application ronment and subjective cognition. In fact, distance
The model describes pedestrian activity and route (travel time), level of crowding, and cognition are quite
choice for different types of pedestrians with distinct important in our investigation, and we expect to
Li 7
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
classify the public places based on pedestrian attribu- Panjiayuan Antique market. Two simple testing
tion and pedestrian agglomeration feature. schemes were built. We simultaneously loaded 4750
To solve this problem, we simplified the large trad- persons in the market based on the data of our investi-
ing market into a network diagram (Figure 3), which gation. Scheme 1 (S1) simulated evacuation based on
included common nodes, landmark nodes, links, and shortest route and supposed that 30% persons would
exits. The circle shape represents common nodes, and think about the crowding. It was more ideal simulation
the square shape denotes landmark nodes. The triangle in S1, because every person knew the shortest evacua-
represents the exits (P1, P2, P3, and P4). The gray areas tion route. By contrast, scheme 2 (S2) was built based
mean the market trading area or hall. on our EECP model.
In the present brief calculation, we chose the nth It was demonstrated in Figures 7 and 8 that the way
person, who had the social and economic feature (in the pedestrians choose their routes toward their desti-
Tables 3 and 4) 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-
Simulation result ison of flow rate, averaged distance, averaged speed,
In order to estimate the effect of modeling evacuation, and journey time between S1 and S2 were listed.
we took the simulation of evacuation as the example. In Figure 12, the journey time distribution was
Figure 4 shows the distribution graph of Beijing demonstrated for S1 and S2. We chose the north door
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 5. Cumulative maximum density for S1. Figure 8. Evacuation for S2 (EECP model).
Discussion
The classical algorithm of way-finding based on the
Figure 6. Cumulative maximum density for S2 (EECP model).
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-
Figure 7. Evacuation route for S1. tion were 1564.8 s (26.08 min) and 1125.6 s (18.76 min),
Li 9
Figure 9. (continued)
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
respectively, and in both of schemes, 90% people Based on the layout of exits, if only in consideration of
escaped the market within 720 s. the trip distance, exit P1 may be better for most people.
By simulation, 57.2% of people chose exit P1 to be an
1. Journey time and averaged journey time evacuating destination in S1, and the percentage of
people choosing exit P4 was only 6.85%. It made the
As illustrated in Figure 12, pedestrians’ averaged jour- passage in southern area of the market to be seldom
ney time toward P1 was significantly higher than other used in emergency, in contrast, exits P1 and P2 were
exits in S1, and the largest journey time was 723 s, and hot points and very crowded. The averaged maximum
the highest averaged journey time was 382 s. The pedes- density reached 1.95 p/m2, and the local instantaneous
trian averaged journey time in exit P2 was 220 s, and it maximum density was 4.15 p/m2.
was much less than 130 s in exits P3 and P4. For simu- It was obtained from our EECP model that pedes-
lation of S2, the averaged journey time among four trian route choice could be optimized. 36.09% people
exits was well balanced. The pedestrians’ averaged jour- chose exit P1, and 25.15% and 22.42% people chose
ney time in exits P1, P2, and P3 were 250, 212, and the exits P2 and P4, respectively. The percentage of peo-
208 s, respectively, and it was 344 s in exit P4. The main ple choosing exit P3 was 16.34%. In the simulation of
reason was that parts of pedestrians at southeast area S2, the maximum density was 3.94 p/m2 and was little
chose exits P3 and P4 to avoid the crowding and panic. lower than that in S1. According to the high density of
S1 and S2, the exits P1 and P2 were very crowded and
2. Density and risk analysis the duration of high density was 249 s in S1, but it was
only 179.4 s in S2.
Li 11
For S1, the dangerous places were the area of exits areas of the north door and northwest door sharply
P1 and P2, and the averaged density was 1.98 p/m2 that increased, evacuation was much easier than others.
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-
Summary and future work
dent. These events and states should be avoided at any In our article, subjective and objective factors had been
time and any place. By the simulation of S2, parts of integrated to judge the possibility of exit choice by the
the pedestrians prefer the most suitable routes rather pedestrians. This article put forward an EECP model
than shortest one basing on their personalized factors based on the assumptions that each pedestrian had his
and cognition degree to the surroundings. This conclu- own subjective cognition, incomplete spatial knowl-
sion was consistent with the fact, showing in our inves- edge, and incomplete rational decision-making. The
tigation that 62% of people would choose the most principles of an algorithm for personalized route choice
familiar routes rather than the shortest ones. Compared preference calculation were then proposed. The algo-
to S1, the pedestrians’ averaged density of exits P1, P2, rithm used additional data supported by our question-
P3, and P4 in S2 decreased obviously, the maximum naire. In emergency, people would choose their routes
density was only 1.18 p/m2, and stampede risk could be by diversity of spatial cognition. They correspondingly
significantly reduced. Also, the evacuation speed of searched their personalized spatial cognitive pathway
Li 13
Figure 11. Advanced averaged entity speed of exits P1, P2, P3, and P4 for S1 and S2.
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 Frankly speaking, many participants in those places
practical visual condition and personal behavior pat- are not familiar with the district, because they are just
tern. The multivariate binary logistic regression method visitors or newcomers to the areas. Only some obvious
was applied to identify the linkage between the selected landmarks or passages could be available from the
factors and the response variable quantitatively. The selection set. When walking to a destination, you could
EECP model could predict the choosing probability, only be acquainted with some intermediate points, and
while someone was in a certain position and going to each one would have different choice. In future, differ-
choose some destinations or landmarks in emergency. ent questionnaires should be carried out in different
There are many public places with crowded pedes- places. The EECP model still needs to be improved in
trians, each group of them owns distinctive feature. studying the practical route finding logics of human
Li 15
Figure 14. Speed and density contrast in area of P1 (north door) and P2 (northwest door) for S1 and S2.
6. Guo RY, Huang HJ and Wong SC. Collection, spillback, emergency situations. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 2012; 3:
and dissipation in pedestrian evacuation: a network- 1543–1547.
based method. Transport Res B: Meth 2011; 45: 490–506. 13. Goetz M. Using crowdsourced indoor geodata for the
7. Nagai R, Fukamachi M and Nagatani T. Evacuation of creation of a three-dimensional indoor routing web appli-
crawlers and walkers from corridor through an exit. Phy- cation. Future Internet 2012; 4: 575–591.
sica A 2006; 367: 449–460. 14. Sokhansefat G, Delavar M and Banedj-Schafii M. Multi-
8. Pan X, Han C, Dauber K, et al. A multi-agent based agent simulation of wayfinding for rescue operation dur-
framework for the simulation of human and social beha- ing building fire. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Tech 2012; 72:
viors during emergency evacuations. AI Soc 2007; 22: 1204–1212.
113–132. 15. Hajibabai L, Delavar M, Malek M, et al. Agent-based
9. Xi H and Son YJ. Two-level modeling framework for simulation of spatial cognition and wayfinding in build-
pedestrian route choice and walking behaviors. Simulat ing fire emergency evacuation. In: Li J, Zlatanova S and
Model Pract Theor 2012; 22: 28–46. Fabbri AG (eds) Geomatics solutions for disaster manage-
10. Nagatani T and Nagai R. Statistical characteristics of ment. Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp.255–270.
evacuation without visibility in random walk model. Phy- 16. Canca D, Zarzo A, Algaba E, et al. Macroscopic
sica A 2004; 341: 638–686. attraction-based simulation of pedestrian mobility: a
11. Hyoung T and JoonhoKo TG. Maximum likelihood and dynamic individual route-choice approach. Eur J Oper
firth logistic regression of the pedestrian route choice. Int Res 2013; 231: 428–442.
Regional Sci Rev. Epub ahead of print 26 January 2016. 17. Feinberg WE and Johnson NR. FIRESCAP: a computer
DOI: 10.1177/0160017615626214. simulation model of reaction to a fire alarm. J Math
12. Arai K and Sang TX. Multi agent-based rescue simula- Sociol 1995; 20: 247–269.
tion for disable persons with the help from volunteers in
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˖ Aǃᓇ୶ᡧ Bǃ᩺ս୶ᡧ
5ǃа㡜ઘ ࡠ⛩ࠐޝWhen do you work until in Saturday˛ DŽ
6ǃа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
8ǃᡰትտ४ฏս㖞 residential zone
ᐲ(City)˖ ४৯(District)˖ ሿ४ᡆ䚃䐟(area or road)˖
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
13ǃлࡇଚᶑԦਁ⭏ˈؑᴹ㍗ᙕᛵߥ˛˄ਟཊ䘹˅
Which of the following conditions occur, you believe that there is an emergency?
AǃᴹӪབྷ༠બᣕ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⭏ˈՊᘾѸ˛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⭏Ⲵᛵߥлˈᴤௌ⅒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䘹䚃䐟ᰦˈਟ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⭏൘ᴰ䘁४ฏˈՊྲօ䘹ᤙ
How do you do when an emergency occurs in the areas closest to you?
Aǃкབྷ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ᤙԫᯩੁˈ䗵䙏ᔰ४ฏ 500 ㊣ Escape toward any direction, and leave area 500 meters
quickly
Cǃ䘹ᤙԫᯩੁˈ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⮿ᮓѝˈ઼਼դ䎠ᮓˈՊᘾѸڊ
How do you do when you got separated with you partner in emergency?
Aǃ㠚ᐡ䗵䙏ᔰড䲙ൠᑖˈ਼ؑդҏ㜭ཏᆹࠪޘ৫ leave the danger zone quickly, and
believe that companion also can go out safely.
Bǃ䘄എራ਼դ Return to looking for companions
CǃԫࠝӪ㗔ᤕᥔˈ൘ൠબㅹᖵ 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
Cǃབྷ༠બˈ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?
Aǃᒯ⮿ሬˈᤷሬབྷᇦ⮿ᮓˈᒦ᭮ᛵߥ 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⭏ᰦˈᱟՊᴹԕл㹼Ѫ˛˄ਟཊ䘹˅
What might you do when an emergency occur?
Aǃᜣ࣎⌅ቭᘛᔰড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৻ቭᘛ 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
EǃᴹሿᆙᆀнࡠᇦӪ൘ଝˈᣡ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