Earthquake simulations at the urban scale usually focus on estimating the damages to the built environment and the consequent losses without fully taking into account human behavior in crisis. Yet, human behavior is a key element for improving crisis disaster management; therefore, it is important to include it in seismic crisis simulations. In this study, an agent-based model for the simulation of pedestrian evacuation during earthquakes at the city scale is developed following an interdisciplinary approach. The model recreates the urban conditions using Geographic Information System (GIS) and a synthetic population, in addition to the earthquake consequences on the urban fabric. Moreover, the model integrates realistic human behaviors calibrated using quantitative survey results. We simulate pedestrian outdoor mobility with the different constraints that affect it such as the topography and the presence of debris. The simulator is applied to the case of Beirut, Lebanon. A what-if approach is adopted to analyze the population’s safety in case of earthquakes in Beirut, particularly the open spaces’ capacity to provide shelters and the effect of debris and realistic human behaviors on people’s safety. The simulation results show that less than 40% of the population is able to arrive at an open space within 15 min after an earthquake. This number is further reduced when some open spaces are locked. Debris and realistic human behaviors significantly delay the arrivals to safe areas and, therefore, should not be neglected in earthquake simulations.
CalviGMPinhoRMagenesG, et al. Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol2006; 43: 75–104.
2.
CarreñoMLCardonaODBarbatAH. New methodology for urban seismic risk assessment from a holistic perspective. Bullet Earthq Eng2012; 10: 547–565.
3.
CrowleyHDespotakiVRodriguesD, et al. Exposure model for European seismic risk assessment. Earthq Spect2020; 36: 252–273.
4.
MourouxPBrunBL. Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bullet Earthq Eng2006; 4: 323–339.
5.
GaireNSongZChristensenKM, et al. Exit choice behavior of pedestrians involving individuals with disabilities during building evacuations. Transp Res Record2018; 2672: 22–29.
ManleyMT. Exitus: an agent-based evacuation simulation model for heterogeneous populations. PhD Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 2012.
8.
PanXHanCSDauberK, et al. A multi-agent based framework for the simulation of human and social behaviors during emergency evacuations. AI Soc2007; 22: 113–132.
9.
ZiaKRienerAFarrahiK, et al. An Agent-Based Parallel Geo-Simulation of Urban Mobility during City-scale Evacuation. Simulation2013; 89: 1184–1214.
10.
BonabeauE. Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2002; 99: 7280–7287.
11.
CimellaroGPOzzelloFValleroA, et al. Simulating earthquake evacuation using human behavior models: simulating earthquake evacuation using human behavior models. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn2017; 46: 985–1002.
12.
LiSYuXZhangY, et al. A numerical simulation strategy on occupant evacuation behaviors and casualty prediction in a building during earthquakes. Phys A: Stat Mech Appl2018; 490: 1238–1250.
13.
XiaoM-LChenYYanM-J, et al. Simulation of household evacuation in the 2014 Ludian earthquake. Bullet Earthq Eng2016; 14: 1757–1769.
14.
BeckEDugdaleJVan TruongH, et al. Crisis mobility of pedestrians: from survey to modelling, lessons from Lebanon and Argentina. In: DokasIMSaoudNB-BDugdaleJ, et al. Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management in Mediterranean Countries. Cham: Springer, pp. 57–70.
15.
BañgateJDugdaleJBeckE, et al. SOLACE a multi-agent model of human behaviour driven by social attachment during seismic crisis. In: Proceedings of the 2017 4th international conference on information and communication technologies for disaster management (ICT-DM). Münster, 11–13 December 2017, pp. 1–9. New York: IEEE.
16.
BañgateJDugdaleJBeckE, et al. A multi-agent system approach in evaluating human spatio-temporal vulnerability to seismic risk using social attachment. In: HernándezS (ed.) WIT transactions on engineering sciences. Sevilla: WIT Press, pp. 47–58.
17.
BañgateJ. Multi agent modeling of seismic crisis. PhD Thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, 2019.
18.
BattegazzorreEBottinoADomaneschiM, et al. IdealCity: a hybrid approach to seismic evacuation modeling. Advances in Engineering Software2021; 153: 102956.
19.
BernardiniGD’OrazioMQuagliariniE. Towards a “behavioural design” approach for seismic risk reduction strategies of buildings and their environment. Safe Sci2016; 86: 273–294.
20.
HashemiMAlesheikhAA. GIS: agent-based modeling and evaluation of an earthquake-stricken area with a case study in Tehran, Iran. Nat Hazards2013; 69: 1895–1917.
21.
LuXYangZCimellaroGP, et al. Pedestrian evacuation simulation under the scenario with earthquake-induced falling debris. Safe Sci2019; 114: 61–71.
22.
TorrensPM. High-resolution space–time processes for agents at the built–human interface of urban earthquakes. Int J Geograph Inform Sci2014; 28: 964–986.
23.
Mohd IbrahimAVenkatIDe WildeP, et al. The role of crowd behavior and cooperation strategies during evacuation. Simulation2022; 98: 737–751.
24.
GoltzJDBourqueLB. Earthquakes and human behavior: a sociological perspective. Int J Disas Risk Reduct2017; 21: 251–265.
25.
JonILindellMPraterC, et al. Behavioral response in the immediate aftermath of shaking: earthquakes in Christchurch and Wellington, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2016; 13: 1137.
26.
LindellMKPraterCSWuHC, et al. Immediate behavioural responses to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan. Disasters2016; 40: 85–111.
27.
Santos-ReyesJGouzevaT. Mexico city’s residents emotional and behavioural reactions to the 19 September 2017 earthquake. Environ Res2020; 186: 109482.
28.
GaillardJ-CClavéEVibertO, et al. Ethnic groups’ response to the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia. Nat Hazards2008; 47: 17–38.
29.
WisnerB. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: BankoffGGeorgFHilhorstD (eds) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. London: Earthscan, 2004, pp. 183–193.
30.
TurnerBLKaspersonREMatsonPA, et al. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2003; 100: 8074–8079.
31.
PalmR. Urban earthquake hazards: The impacts of culture on perceived risk and response in the USA and Japan. Appl Geogr1998; 35–46.
32.
ParadiseTR. Perception of earthquake risk in Agadir, Morocco: a case study from a Muslim community. Environ Hazards2005; 6: 167–180.
33.
HuijerCHarajliMSadekS. Re-evaluation and updating of the seismic hazard of Lebanon. J Seismol2016; 20: 233–250.
34.
DaëronMKlingerYTapponnierP, et al. Sources of the large A.D. 1202 and 1759 Near East earthquakes. Geology2005; 33: 529.
35.
EliasATapponnierPSinghSC, et al. Active thrusting offshore Mount Lebanon: source of the tsunamigenic A.D. 551 Beirut-tripoli earthquake. Geology2007; 35: 755–758.
36.
FaourGMhawejM. Mapping urban transitions in the greater Beirut area using different space platforms. Land2014; 3: 941–956.
37.
YassinN. Beirut. Cities2012; 29: 64–73.
38.
QuarantelliEL. Disaster response: generic or agent-specific? In: KreimerAMunasingheM (eds) Managing natural disasters and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank, pp. 97–105.
39.
TailleferNArroucauPLeoneF, et al. Association Française du Génie Parasismique: rapport de la mission du séisme du Teil du 11 novembre 2019 (Ardèche). July2021, https://hal.science/hal-03276107/document
40.
BeckEDugdaleJAdamC, et al. A methodology for co-constructing an interdisciplinary model: from model to survey, from survey to model. Arxiv 2011:13604, https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13604
41.
BoxGEP. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc1976; 71: 791–799.
42.
de LeeuwJ. Model selection in multinomial experiments. In: DijkstraTK (ed.) On model uncertainty and its statistical implications. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 118–138.
ShresthaSRSliuzasRKufferM. Open spaces and risk perception in post-earthquake Kathmandu city. Appl Geogr2018; 93: 81–91.
45.
CampbellMJDennisonPEButlerBW, et al. Using crowdsourced fitness tracker data to model the relationship between slope and travel rates. Appl Geogr2019; 106: 93–107.
46.
PoselDR. Who are the heads of household, what do they do, and is the concept of headship useful? An analysis of headship in South Africa. Develop Southern Africa2001; 18: 651–670.
47.
Lebanese Republic Central Administration of Statistics. Labour force and household living conditions survey: (LFHLCS) 2018–2019 Lebanon. Beirut: Central Administration of Statistics, 2020.
48.
DouglasJ. Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-Sci Rev2003; 61: 43–104.
49.
IskandarRAl TfailyBCornouC, et al. Estimating urban seismic damages and debris at the building-level when there is a lack of comprehensive data: application to the city of Beirut, Lebanon. Bullet Earthq Eng (under review).
50.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model HAZUS-MH 2.1 technical manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012.
51.
ChuMLPanXLawK. Incorporating social behaviors in egress simulation. In: ZhuYRaymond IssaR (eds) Congress on computing in civil engineering. Miami, FL: ASCE, 2011, pp. 544–551.
52.
KuligowskiED. Terror defeated: occupant sensemaking, decision-making and protective action in the 2001 World Trade Center Disaster. PhD Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2011.
53.
ChuMLLawK. Computational framework incorporating human behaviors for egress simulations. J Comput Civil Eng2013; 27: 699–707.
54.
KazarianSS. Family functioning, cultural orientation, and psychological well-being among university students in Lebanon. J Soc Psychol2005; 145: 141–154.
55.
MikamiSIkedaR. Human responses to disasters. Int J Mass Emerg Disast1985; 3: 107–132.
56.
ProulxG. Evacuation time and movement in apartment buildings. Fire Safe J1995; 24: 229–246.
57.
MawsonAR. Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiat: Interpers Biol Process2005; 68: 95–113.
58.
HelbingDMolnarP. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys Rev E1995; 51: 4282–4286.
59.
BañgateJMDugdaleJBeckE, et al. Review of agent based modelling of social attachment in crisis situations. Int J Inform Syst Crisis Resp Manag2019; 11: 35–64.
60.
CastroSPoulosAHerreraJC, et al. Modeling the impact of earthquake-induced debris on Tsunami evacuation times of coastal cities. Earthq Spect2019; 35: 137–158.
OsaragiTOkiT. Wide-area evacuation simulation incorporating rescue and firefighting by local residents. J Disaster Res2017; 12: 296–310.
63.
IskandarRAllawKDugdaleJ, et al. Agent-based simulation of pedestrians’ earthquake evacuation; application to Beirut, Lebanon. In: Proceedings of the 17th world conference on earthquake engineering, Sendai, Japan, 13–18 September 2020.
64.
IskandarRDugdaleJBeckE, et al. PEERS: an integrated agent-based framework for simulating pedestrians’ earthquake evacuation. In: AdrotAGraceRMooreK, et al. (eds) ISCRAM 2021 conference proceedings: 18th international conference on information systems for crisis response and management. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2021, pp. 86–96.
65.
TaillandierPGaudouBGrignardA, et al. Building, composing and experimenting complex spatial models with the GAMA platform. Geoinformatica2018; 23: 299–322.
66.
European Centre on Prevention and Forecasting of Earthquakes (ECPFE), Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (OASP). Emergency evacuation of the population in case of an earthquake, https://ecpfe.oasp.gr/sites/default/files/eee_0.pdf (2002, accessed 11 February 2020).
