How risk preference affects evacuees’ route choice in buildings: An IVR-based experimental study

IF 4.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Safety Science Pub Date : 2025-03-15 DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106840
Jiguang Shi , Ning Ding , Hao Wang , Yang Wang
{"title":"How risk preference affects evacuees’ route choice in buildings: An IVR-based experimental study","authors":"Jiguang Shi ,&nbsp;Ning Ding ,&nbsp;Hao Wang ,&nbsp;Yang Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>During building evacuations, evacuees often tend to enter areas with smoke and flames, which contradicts established safety principles for evacuation. This paper investigates how individuals with different risk preferences process evacuation information and make route choices. 72 participants were categorized into two groups based on a risk preference questionnaire: one-third were identified as Risk Seeking Group (RSG) and the rest as Risk Averse Group (RAG). Subsequently, eye-tracking technology and immersive virtual reality (IVR) were employed to analyze the variations in behavior between these groups. The findings show that: (1) RAG exhibited a general attention bias toward risk-related information; (2) Significant differences were observed in route choice among RAG based on varying cognitive approaches; (3) While all participants acknowledged the importance of safety factors, approximately 40% behaviorally chose routes involving flames; (4) RSG prioritizes evacuation distance and evacuation efficiency in the evacuation process, achieving an average evacuation time that was 23.85% faster than that of RAG. Conversely, RAG displayed a tendency to avoid harm, even at the cost of evacuation efficiency. This paper deconstructs complex evacuation behaviors from a psychological perspective, providing a more comprehensive understanding of route choices among evacuees with different risk preferences. It serves as a reference for optimizing evacuation strategies and designing building safety features with consideration of psychological factors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 106840"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000657","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During building evacuations, evacuees often tend to enter areas with smoke and flames, which contradicts established safety principles for evacuation. This paper investigates how individuals with different risk preferences process evacuation information and make route choices. 72 participants were categorized into two groups based on a risk preference questionnaire: one-third were identified as Risk Seeking Group (RSG) and the rest as Risk Averse Group (RAG). Subsequently, eye-tracking technology and immersive virtual reality (IVR) were employed to analyze the variations in behavior between these groups. The findings show that: (1) RAG exhibited a general attention bias toward risk-related information; (2) Significant differences were observed in route choice among RAG based on varying cognitive approaches; (3) While all participants acknowledged the importance of safety factors, approximately 40% behaviorally chose routes involving flames; (4) RSG prioritizes evacuation distance and evacuation efficiency in the evacuation process, achieving an average evacuation time that was 23.85% faster than that of RAG. Conversely, RAG displayed a tendency to avoid harm, even at the cost of evacuation efficiency. This paper deconstructs complex evacuation behaviors from a psychological perspective, providing a more comprehensive understanding of route choices among evacuees with different risk preferences. It serves as a reference for optimizing evacuation strategies and designing building safety features with consideration of psychological factors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Safety Science
Safety Science 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
335
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Safety Science is multidisciplinary. Its contributors and its audience range from social scientists to engineers. The journal covers the physics and engineering of safety; its social, policy and organizational aspects; the assessment, management and communication of risks; the effectiveness of control and management techniques for safety; standardization, legislation, inspection, insurance, costing aspects, human behavior and safety and the like. Papers addressing the interfaces between technology, people and organizations are especially welcome.
期刊最新文献
Improving occupational safety and health motivation through a dialogue-based inspection practice How risk preference affects evacuees’ route choice in buildings: An IVR-based experimental study Behavioral and psychophysiological responses of initial pilots in collaboration with an experienced but risky captain: A flight-simulation study based on the social facilitation Development and empirical examination of the acceptance of a hazard identification and safety training system based on VR technology Identify and classify common errors, antecedents, outcomes, and mitigation strategies in qualitative and semi-quantitative workplace safety risk management: Integrating grounded theory and systematic literature review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1