Does the Debate on Stress Effect Lead Evacuation Simulation Models to Different Performances?

Abstract

There exists a long time debate over the rational state of the evacuees in the evacuation simulation. Sime et al. insisted that the evacuees behave rationally in most cases. Following this argument Arthur and Passini concluded that if a setting works well under normal conditions, it will have a better chance of working well in emergency conditions. Such an argument for rational decision-making makes statistical models, such as Utility Maximizing Model (UMM), acting as proper framework for choice modelling in evacuation. However, on the other side, some people pointed out that there exists panic in the evacuation and bounded rationality theory, represented by pruned Decision Tree Model (DTM), should be adapted in choice modelling instead. Such a debate over stress effect causes hesitations and uncertainties when researchers try to select a proper model framework for their practical simulation. This study compared the performances (prediction accuracies) of the UMM and DTM with the same set of choice data collected in a virtual evacuation experiment. With a similar level of performance on both sides, it is suggested that the on-going debate does NOT bring any difference to the choice modelling in practical evacuation simulation. It is time to improve the performance rather than to continue the debate