Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuation: Floor Plan Cognition and Distance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- (2)
- Unclear signage of evacuation routes: Clear signage can help evacuees find the directions and shorten evacuation time. Experiments showed that the factors affecting the clearness of signage include: sign area, stroke thickness, bounding area of words, the luminance of characters, contrast, color, orientation, the visual environment surrounding the sign, transparent background, and the word spacing ratio [3,4].
- (3)
- Absence of conspicuous legends to assist the public in evacuation: the buildings’ newcomers rely on the legends or location marking to find a way out easily [5].
- (4)
- Visual access: when smoke accumulates or the light is off, it is harder for the evacuee to find the way out [5].
- (5)
- Backing-homing instinct: Chiewchengchol et al. [6] concluded that 50% opted for back-homing during a fire, while the rest sought a new evacuation direction. Back-homing is defined as “the behavior in which an evacuee who is not familiar with a building structure or has entered it for the first time tracks the route by which he/she entered”.
- An on-site experiment assessed legend recognition and orientation abilities during an evacuation scenario;
- The study found that consistency between floor plan presentation and the actual site’s physical layout significantly impacted participants’ cognitive abilities;
- First-person perspective floor plans were found to be the most easily understandable and recognizable;
- Statistical analysis using t-tests revealed:
- ■
- Women (31%) outperformed men (5.3%) in legend recognition;
- ■
- Men (25.5%) surpassed women (7.1%) in orientation tasks;
- ■
- These findings align with prior research in neuroscience.
- One-way ANOVA analysis highlighted:
- ■
- Differences in average time taken by participants when faced with varying combinations of easy/hard-to-read floor plans and closer/farther designated staircases;
- ■
- Hard-to-read floor plan and farther designated staircase resulted in the longest time taken;
- ■
- Easy-to-read floor plan and closer designated staircase led to the shortest time;
- ■
- The study found that participants with difficult-to-understand floor plans took considerably more time to reach the closer staircase.
- Floor plan readability plays a more critical role when the distance between staircases is shorter. This emphasizes the importance of clear, comprehensible maps during emergency situations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. On-Site Experiments
- All participants were new to this site. The participants were guided to the starting point through staircase A (Figure 1), near the starting point. In this setting, the participants only relied on the floor plan to find the designated staircases later.
- Create two floor plans, Plan A and Plan B, for the selected venue.
- Figure 1 presents Floor Plan A and Floor Plan B. Floor Plan A was created using the first-person view (FPV). Floor Plan B was nearly identical to Floor Plan A. The difference between the two was the location of the “you are here” icon and their hanging position. Floor Plan A was attached to the wall on the right side of the starting point, and Floor Plan B was attached to the wall on the left side of the starting point (Figure 1).
- The participants selected to read either Floor Plan A or Floor Plan B. After they decided, they drew lots to decide whether to find Staircase I (farther) or Staircase II (nearer).
- After the participants’ finished reading the floor plan on the wall, they were asked to walk to the designated staircase; after reaching the staircase, the participants were asked to return to their starting point (i.e., the starting point was also the destination).
- A research team member recorded the absolute time at the starting point, the staircase, and the final destination. The items being recorded were the time the participants started reading the floor plan, the time they set out, the time they arrived at the staircase, and the time they returned to the destination.
- To simplify the recording procedure and avoid errors, all research team members must adjust their watch or cellphone clock to the national standard time. Thus, the absolute time of the actions mentioned above was recorded.
- After reaching the destination, the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on legend recognition and orientation.
- (a)
- Reading easily understandable Floor Plan A (abbreviated as (E) hereafter);
- (b)
- Reading the relatively difficult Floor Plan B (abbreviated as (D) hereafter);
- (c)
- Being assigned to Staircase I, which is farther from the starting point (abbreviated as (F) hereafter);
- (d)
- Being assigned to Staircase II is closer to the starting point (abbreviated as (C) hereafter).
2.2. Questionnaire Survey for the Gender Difference
- What is your impression of the spatial layout after reading the floor plan in the corridor? (Please select one answer only)
- (A)
- I have absolutely no idea where the copy room, Corner Café, and the information desk are located.
- (B)
- I roughly know the location of the copy room, but I am not certain.
- (C)
- I know the location of the copy room and Corner Café.
- (D)
- I know the locations of the copy room, Corner Café, and the information desk.
- (E)
- I know the locations of the copy room, Corner Café, and the information desk. I also know that Staircase I is near the information desk, and Staircase II is near the copy room and Corner Café.
- What is your impression of the spatial layout after reading the floor plan in the corridor? (Please select one answer only)
- (A)
- I have absolutely no idea what Staircase I and Staircase II’s relative locations are or the distance between them.
- (B)
- I have a rough idea of Staircase I and Staircase II’s relative locations and the distance between them, but I am unclear.
- (C)
- When setting out from the starting point, I pass Staircase II first before arriving at Staircase I.
- (D)
- When setting out from the starting point, I pass Staircase II first before arriving at Staircase I. On the way to Staircase I or Staircase II, both staircases are on the route’s right-hand side.
- (E)
- The floor plan shows that Staircase I is to the east of the information desk, and Staircase II is to the east of the copy room and the north of Corner Café. The distance between Staircase I and the starting point is more extensive than between Staircase II and the starting point.
2.3. Scoring Standards of the Questionnaire Items
- Floor Plan A was created using the first-person perspective and attached to the wall on the right side at the starting point. The orientation of Floor Plan A was consistent with the actual layout of the site. In other words, Floor Plan A was a 2D presentation of the 3D layout in the actual site.
- Floor Plan B was nearly identical to Floor Plan A except that the “you are here” icon was placed in a different location. Floor Plan B was attached to the wall on the left side at the starting point. The Floor Plan B orientation was inverted left and right with the site’s actual layout.
- When completing the questionnaire, the participants were asked to choose only one answer for each item. In consideration of the potential variance in the participants’ cognitive abilities, the subjective factor was lowered to the minimum in the design of items. The items were scored according to the standards shown in Table 2.
2.4. Statistical Methods
2.4.1. Independent Two-Sample t-Test
- (1)
- Levene’s test
- (2)
- F-test
- (3)
- Independent two-sample t-test
2.4.2. One-Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
- Independence: the observations within each group and between the groups are independent;
- Normality: the data within each group are normally distributed;
- Homogeneity of variances: the variances within each group are equal.
- Step 1: Calculate the group means for each group (Mi) (i = 1~k) and the overall grand mean (GM) of all observations.
- Step 2: Compute the sum of squares between groups (SSB):
- Step 3: Compute the sum of squares within groups (SSW):
- Step 4: Calculate the degrees of freedom between groups (dfB):
- Step 5: Calculate the degrees of freedom within groups (dfW):
- Step 6: Compute the mean squares between groups (MSB):
- Step 7: Compute the mean squares within groups (MSW):
- Step 8: Calculate the F-value:
2.4.3. Post Hoc Analysis Using Scheffé’s Method
- Step 1: Compute the overall F-value, dfB, and dfW for the one-way ANOVA.
- Step 2: Compute the Scheffé critical value (S):
- Step 3: Calculate the Scheffé test statistic for each pairwise comparison:
- Step 4: Compare each test statistic to the critical value:If Sij > S, the difference between the means of groups i and j is considered significant.
2.5. Study Limitaitions
3. Results
3.1. Questionnaire for Gender Difference in Legend Recognition and Orientation
3.2. On-Site Experiment
3.2.1. General Result
3.2.2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
4. Discussion
4.1. Gender Difference in Orientation
4.2. FPV Plan for Wayfinding
4.3. Implications
4.4. Future Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kobes, M.; Helsloot, I.; de Vries, B.; Post, J.G. Building safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review. Fire Saf. J. 2010, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, D.J. Integrating human behaviour factors into design. J. Fire Prot. Eng. 2005, 28, 8–20. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, L.T.; Kwan, C.M. Assessing the Exit Sign Legibility for Building Occupants. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2005, 48, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, S.T.; Bützler, J.; Schlick, C.M. The influence of information presented on digital escape route signage on decision-making under mentally and emotionally strenuous conditions. In Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, 9–14 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Raubal, M.; Egenhofer, M.J. Comparing the Complexity of Wayfinding Tasks in Built Environments. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1998, 25, 895–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiewchengchol, W.; Koga, T.; Hirate, K. Development of an Evacuation Simulator using a Walkthrough System and Research on Evacuation Behavior in the Case of Fire. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2018, 10, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, T.T. An approach for modeling human cognitive behavior in evacuation models. Fire Saf. J. 2005, 40, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frantzich, H. A Model for Performance-Based Design of Escape Routes; Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Sime, J.D. Crowd psychology and engineering. Saf. Sci. 1995, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, B.L.; Ho, M.J.; Kuo, Y.G.; Hsia, Y.Y. Relationship between the Disaster Prevention Knowledge and Evacuation Behavior of Disaster-Vulnerable People when Evacuating into Large Underground Spaces. In Proceedings of the 25th Architecture Research Organized by Architectural Institute of Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan, 5 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- McGuinness, D.; Sparks, J. Cognitive style and cognitive maps: Sex differences in representations of a familiar terrain. J. Ment. Imag. 1983, 7, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
- Galea, L.A.M.; Kimura, D. Sex differences in route-learning. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1993, 14, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberty Times. Fire at the White Snow Hotel. 2009. Available online: http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/284311 (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Chang, B.L.; Kuo, Y.G.; Tian, H.G.; Hsia, Y.Y. Effect of Perspective Difference on the Cognitive Ability to Evacuation Maps. In Proceedings of the 29th Architecture Research Organized by Architectural Institute of Taiwan, Tainan, Taiwan, 10 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Souman, J.L.; Frissen, I.; Sreenivasa, M.N.; Ernst, M.O. Walking Straight into Circles. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 1538–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, K.; Newcombe, N.S. Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? squaring theory and evidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2005, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, R.A.; Moore, G.T. Extracts from the development of spatial cognition. In Environmental Psychology, People and Their Physical Settings; Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H., Rivlin, L.G., Eds.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1976; pp. 258–281. [Google Scholar]
- Wiener, J.M.; Büchner, S.J.; Hölscher, C. Taxonomy of Human Wayfinding Tasks: A Knowledge-Based Approach. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 2009, 9, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobben, A.K. Tasks, Strategies, and Cognitive Processes Associated With Navigational Map Reading: A Review Perspective. Prof. Geogr. 2004, 56, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.T. Knowing about environmental knowing: The current state of theory and research on environmental cognition. Environ. Behav. 1979, 11, 33–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golledge, R.G. Human wayfinding and cognitive map. In Wayfinding Behavior; Golledge, R.G., Ed.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1999; pp. 5–45. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. Cognition and Environment Functioning in an Uncertain World; Ulrich’s Bookstore Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, A.W.; White, S.H. The Development of Spatial Representations of Large-Scale Environments. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 1975, 10, 9–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, G.L. Spatial abilities, Cognitive map, and Wayfinding. In Wayfinding Behavior; Golledge, R.G., Ed.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1999; pp. 46–80. [Google Scholar]
- Levine, M. You-are-here-maps: Psychological considerations. Environ. Behav. 1982, 14, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinew, M.; Marchon, I.; Hanley, G.L. The Placement and Misplacement of You-Are-Here Maps. Environ. Behav. 1984, 16, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montello, D.R. Navigation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking; Shah, P., Miyake, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 257–294. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 23601:2020; Safety Identification-Escape and Evacuation Plan Signs. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
- BS 9999:2017; Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings—Code of Practice. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2017.
- Guo, C.; Huo, F.; Li, C.; Li, Y. An evacuation model considering the phototactic behavior of panic pedestrians under limited visual field. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2023, 615, 128602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozel, F. Time pressure and stress as a factor during emergency egress. Saf. Sci. 2001, 38, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Carvel, R.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, Z. Experimental investigation on the evacuation performance of pedestrians in a three-lane urban tunnel with natural ventilation in a fire scenario. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 108, 103634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drabek, T.E.; Boggs, K.S. Families in Disaster: Reactions and Relatives. J. Marriage Fam. 1968, 30, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskaya, A.; Wilson, C.; Özcan, Y.Z. Wayfinding in an Unfamiliar Environment: Different spatial settings of two polyclinics. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 839–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riad, J.K.; Norris, F.H.; Ruback, R.B. Predicting Evacuation in Two Major Disasters: Risk Perception, Social Influence, and Access to Resources. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 918–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, N.; Chen, T.; Zhu, Y.; Lu, Y. State-of-the-art high-rise building emergency evacuation behavior. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. its Appl. 2021, 561, 125168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, N.; Sun, C. Experimental study of leader-and-follower behaviours during emergency evacuation. Fire Saf. J. 2020, 117, 103189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Zhu, R.; Li, N.; Becerik-Gerber, B. Do people follow the crowd in building emergency evacuation? A cross-cultural immersive virtual reality-based study. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2020, 43, 101040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, A.; He, J.; Liang, M.; Su, G. Crowd response considering herd effect and exit familiarity under emergent occasions: A case study of an evacuation drill experiment. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2020, 556, 124654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Construction and Planning Agency. Regulations Regarding Construction Techniques. 2019. Available online: https://w3.cpami.gov.tw/law/law/lawe-2/b-rule.htm (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Hölscher, C.; Tenbrink, T.; Wiener, J.M. Would you follow your own route description? Cognitive strategies in urban route planning. Cognition 2011, 121, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Ke, J.; Tong, L.; Luo, X. Investigating the influence of route turning angle on compliance behaviors and evacuation performance in a virtual-reality-based experiment. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2021, 48, 101259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabbs, J.M., Jr.; Chang, E.-L.; Strong, R.A.; Milun, R. Spatial Ability, Navigation Strategy, and Geographic Knowledge Among Men and Women. Evol. Hum. Behav. 1998, 19, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawton, C.A. Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles 1994, 30, 765–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saykin, A.J.; Gur, R.C.; Gur, R.E.; Shtasel, D.L.; Flannery, K.A.; Mozley, L.H.; Malamut, B.L.; Watson, B.; Mozley, P.D. Normative neuropsychological test performance: Effects of age, education, gender and ethnicity. Appl. Neuropsychol. 1995, 2, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosco, A.; Longoni, A.M.; Vecchi, T. Gender effects in spatial orientation: Cognitive profiles and mental strategies. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2004, 18, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, D. The Psychology of Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 130–138. [Google Scholar]
- Huttenlocher, J.; Presson, C.C. Mental rotation and the perspective problem. Cogn. Psychol. 1973, 4, 277–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carattin, E.; Labate, E.; Meneghetti, C.; Pazzaglia, F.; Tatano, V. Human wayfinding abilities to reach an area of refuge in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire, Cambridge, UK, 19–21 September 2012; pp. 557–563. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, C.C. A fire safety study of Hong Kong refuge floor building wall layout design. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pai, Y.S.; Outram, B.I.; Tag, B.; Isogai, M.; Ochi, D.; Kimata, H.; Kunze, K. CleaVR: Collaborative layout evaluation and assessment in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH 2017, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 30 July–3 August 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, B.; Close, B.; Donoghue, J.; Squires, J.; De Bondi, P.; Morris, M.; Piekarski, W. ARQuake: An outdoor/indoor augmented reality first person application, Digest of Papers. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 18–21 October 2000; pp. 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viaene, P.; Ooms, K.; Vansteenkiste, P.; Lenoir, M.; de Maeyer, P. The Use of Eye Tracking in Search of Indoor Landmarks. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Eye Tracking for Spatial Research, Vienna, Austria, 23 September 2014; pp. 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, Y.; Bode, N.W.F. An investigation of how context affects the response of pedestrians to the movement of others. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Zhang, J.; He, J.; Gong, J.; Zhao, J. Experiment and simulation of pedestrian’s behaviors during evacuation in an office. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2020, 545, 123749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burigat, S.; Chittaro, L.; Sioni, R. Mobile Three-Dimensional Maps for Wayfinding in Large and Complex Buildings: Empirical Comparison of First-Person Versus Third-Person Perspective. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2017, 47, 1029–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Floor Plan | E (Easy-to-Read Floor Plan) | D (Relatively Difficult-to-Read Plan) | |
---|---|---|---|
Staircase | |||
F (farther staircase) | EF | DF | |
C (closer staircase) | EC | DC |
Item 1 | Item 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Choice | Point(s) | Choice | Point(s) |
A | 1 (Poor legend recognition) | A | 1 (Poor orientation) |
B | 2 (Unsatisfactory legend recognition) | B | 2 (Unsatisfactory orientation) |
C | 3 (Ordinary legend recognition) | C | 3 (Ordinary orientation) |
D | 4 (Satisfactory legend recognition) | D | 4 (Satisfactory orientation) |
E | 5 (Excellent legend recognition) | E | 5 (Excellent orientation) |
Legend Recognition | |||
---|---|---|---|
Gender | n | Percentage | |
Female | Unfamiliar | 6 | 7.1 |
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar | 5 | 6.0 | |
Somewhat familiar | 18 | 21.4 | |
Familiar | 29 | 34.5 | |
Very familiar | 26 | 31.0 | |
Total | 84 | 100.0 | |
Male | Unfamiliar | 36 | 38.3 |
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar | 42 | 44.7 | |
Somewhat familiar | 7 | 7.4 | |
Familiar | 4 | 4.3 | |
Very familiar | 5 | 5.3 | |
Total | 94 | 100.0 | |
Orientation | |||
Female | Unfamiliar | 30 | 35.7 |
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar | 35 | 41.7 | |
Somewhat familiar | 5 | 6.0 | |
Familiar | 8 | 9.5 | |
Very familiar | 6 | 7.1 | |
Total | 84 | 100.0 | |
Male | Unfamiliar | 6 | 6.4 |
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar | 6 | 6.4 | |
Somewhat familiar | 28 | 29.8 | |
Familiar | 30 | 31.9 | |
Very familiar | 24 | 25.5 | |
Total | 94 | 100.0 |
Group Statistics | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | n | Mean | SD | Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) | ||||||
Legend recognition | Female | 84 | 3.76 | 1.168 | 0.127 | |||||
Male | 94 | 1.94 | 1.056 | 0.109 | ||||||
Independent samples t-test | ||||||||||
Levene’s test | t-test with an equal mean | |||||||||
F | p (Significance) | t | Degrees of freedom | p Significance (two-tailed) | Difference in average | Difference in SD | Confidence interval: 95% | |||
Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||||||
Legend recognition | Assuming the variances are equal | 3.727 | 0.055 | 10.955 | 176 | 0.000 | 1.826 | 0.167 | 1.497 | 2.155 |
Group Statistics | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | n | Mean | SD | Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) | ||||||
Legend recognition | Female | 84 | 2.11 | 1.203 | 0.131 | |||||
Male | 94 | 3.64 | 1.125 | 0.116 | ||||||
Independent samples t-test | ||||||||||
Levene’s test | t-test with an equal mean | |||||||||
F | p (Significance) | t | Degrees of freedom | p Significance (two-tailed) | Difference in average | Difference in SD | Confidence interval: 95% | |||
Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||||||
Legend recognition | Assuming the variances are equal | 0.180 | 0.672 | −8.774 | 176 | 0.000 | −1.531 | .175 | −1.876 | −1.187 |
n | Mean | SD | SEM | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EC | 21 | 98.33 | 2.921 | 0.637 | 95 | 105 |
DC | 92 | 153.82 | 12.432 | 1.296 | 135 | 175 |
EF | 40 | 113.40 | 12.027 | 1.902 | 92 | 133 |
DF | 25 | 169.96 | 3.182 | 0.636 | 165 | 175 |
Total | 178 | - | - | - | 92 | 175 |
Time | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | The Average Sum of Squares | F | p Significance | |
Between-group | 104,723.055 | 3 (dfB) | 34,907.685 | 301.899 | 0.000 |
Within-group | 20,119.085 | 174 (dfW) | 115.627 | ||
Total | 124,842.140 | 177 |
Time (s) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor Combination (A) | Factor Combination (B) | Mean Difference (A − B) | SD | p (Significance) | Confidence Interval: 95% | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
EC | DC | −55.482 * | 2.601 | 0.000 | −62.82 | −48.14 |
EF | −15.067 * | 2.898 | 0.000 | −23.25 | −6.89 | |
DF | −71.627 * | 3.183 | 0.000 | −80.61 | −62.64 | |
DC | EC | 55.482 * | 2.601 | 0.000 | 48.14 | 62.82 |
EF | 40.415 * | 2.037 | 0.000 | 34.67 | 46.16 | |
DF | −16.145 * | 2.425 | 0.000 | −22.99 | −9.30 | |
EF | EC | 15.067 * | 2.898 | 0.000 | 6.89 | 23.25 |
DC | −40.415 * | 2.037 | 0.000 | −46.16 | −34.67 | |
DF | −56.560 * | 2.741 | 0.000 | −64.30 | −48.82 | |
DF | EC | 71.627 * | 3.183 | 0.000 | 62.64 | 80.61 |
DC | 16.145 * | 2.425 | 0.000 | 9.30 | 22.99 | |
EF | 56.560 * | 2.741 | 0.000 | 48.82 | 64.30 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chang, B.-L.; Chang, H.-T.; Lin, B.S.-M.; Hsiao, G.L.-K.; Lin, Y.-J. Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuation: Floor Plan Cognition and Distance. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108028
Chang B-L, Chang H-T, Lin BS-M, Hsiao GL-K, Lin Y-J. Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuation: Floor Plan Cognition and Distance. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108028
Chicago/Turabian StyleChang, Bang-Lee, Hsiao-Tung Chang, Beckham Shih-Ming Lin, Gary Li-Kai Hsiao, and Yong-Jun Lin. 2023. "Factors Affecting Emergency Evacuation: Floor Plan Cognition and Distance" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108028