4.7 Article

Why do people make risky decisions during a fire evacuation? Study on the effect of smoke level, individual risk preference, and neighbor behavior

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105245

关键词

Evacuation; Risk-taking behavior; Route selection; Smoke; Risk preference

资金

  1. College of Design, Construction, and Planning at the University of Florida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used virtual reality technology to conduct a fire evacuation experiment, revealing that individuals with a higher risk preference are more likely to choose a risky shortcut, but individual attitudes towards risk are unstable and neighbor behavior also influences individual risky decisions.
People make risky decisions during fire evacuations such as moving through smoke. However, the reasons behind such risk-taking decisions have not been investigated in controlled experiments. Using an immersive virtual reality (VR)-based controlled experiment, this study investigated the effect of smoke level, individual risk preference, and neighbor behavior on individual risky decisions to take a smoky shortcut for evacuations. In the present experiment, participants' risk tolerance was measured using questionnaires, and their route choices were recorded when they evacuated from a virtual building under different smoke scenarios. A high density of smoke reduced the use of a smoky shortcut but did not prevent some participants from using the shortcut. Participants with high-risk tolerance were more likely to take a risky shortcut. However, individual attitude towards risk is unstable; hence, the risk preference revealed in daily behaviors under a low-danger context may not reveal individual risky decisions in face of high hazards. Moreover, neighbor behavior also had a significant impact on participants' risky decisions. The implications of our findings on evacuation training and management and evacuation simulation models were also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据