Application of the 3D Multi User Virtual Environment of Second Life™ to Emergency Evacuation Simulation <ul><li>Judith Mol...
Introduction <ul><li>Can virtual environments contribute to real evacuation trainings? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Do they addre...
Prior Research on Evacuations <ul><li>Two main approaches:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>researchers, trying to create and simula...
Limitations of live evacuation drills <ul><li>1. Sustained costs - For many fire drills are not interesting. They are just...
Factors affecting human behavior <ul><li>Physical  (smoke, situation of the evacuation route) and  psychological  factors ...
How evacuation trials in Second Life may help <ul><li>May help persons to be better prepared to address hazard situations ...
Survey One <ul><li>General information about the group </li></ul><ul><li>General knowledge of safety procedures, emergency...
Pre-Trial Survey Responses Gender  M:F 64%:36 % Age  18-25; 26-35; >35 54%; 36%; 10% Aware of safety procedures in workpla...
Design of Evacuation Trials <ul><li>The  goals  of our model and trial design are to improve the performance of participan...
Model of Building B in progress
Building B
Building B
Building B – fire and smoke
Two Trials  <ul><li>Participants were asked to exit the building to the same target exit. </li></ul><ul><li>Trial 1 was to...
Trial 1 – routes taken
Trial 2 – routes taken
Participants who were familiar with video games had less trouble with moving  the avatar initially. In the second trial pa...
Survey Two  <ul><li>Did participants find the exit successfully or not </li></ul><ul><li>Do they like the experience of th...
Post-Trial Survey Responses 1 Did you find the exit successfully? 63% -Yes no problem; 42% - some problems; 5% -No 2 How d...
How do the trials in SL address some of the limitations of live trials? <ul><li>1.  Sustained costs  - Could prove  more i...
Concluding Remarks <ul><li>Learning seemed to occur  -- of how to better control movement of avatar in SL even after one t...
Further research <ul><li>Add factors to the model that will  create a sense of urgency  such as adding increasing siren so...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Hawaii International Conference on System Science - Chabada&Molka-Danielsen

591 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
591
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Hawaii International Conference on System Science - Chabada&Molka-Danielsen

  1. 1. Application of the 3D Multi User Virtual Environment of Second Life™ to Emergency Evacuation Simulation <ul><li>Judith Molka-Danielsen, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>Molde University College, Norway </li></ul><ul><li>j.molka-danielsen@himolde.no </li></ul><ul><li>Michal Chabada, M.Sc. </li></ul><ul><li>Anasoft apr, s.r.o., Slovakia </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address]   </li></ul>Presented at:
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Can virtual environments contribute to real evacuation trainings? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Do they address some of the limitations of live evacuations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do participants learn through experience in virtual simulations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does having fun and entertainment contribute to the benefits of using the virtual trainings? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Former Research - virtual world and use of simulation for safety procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Design and testing of a simulation in Second Life </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion of surveys and trial performance </li></ul>
  3. 3. Prior Research on Evacuations <ul><li>Two main approaches: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>researchers, trying to create and simulate their own environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>researchers focusing on procedures and advantages or disadvantages of applying procedures in virtual worlds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some examples of computer model based simulations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fire Evacuation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hospital Evacuation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evacuation Simulation in Underground (Johnson, 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We do not simulate human behavior during trial </li></ul><ul><li>Avatars in Second Life represent real people </li></ul>
  4. 4. Limitations of live evacuation drills <ul><li>1. Sustained costs - For many fire drills are not interesting. They are just required exercises. Virtual worlds could make these exercises more interesting. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Limited accuracy – Difficult to simulate all potential hazards and many may not take the potential situation as a serious risk. Everyone may not be aware of where the nearest exit is located. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Short ‘shelf life’ - Buildings are changing every day; can diminish the lessons learned that would appear as outcomes of “live” simulation. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Lack of design focus - Evacuation drills are not interactive with a live threat and so design effects cannot be applied in real time. </li></ul><ul><li>5. Danger - Risk that during evacuation exercise something goes wrong. These are known as “workplace accidents” where property damage, injury or death can occur. </li></ul><ul><li>6. Poor repeatability of the results of individual trials – Persons performing live exercises may find new ways to complete a task or leave the building. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Factors affecting human behavior <ul><li>Physical (smoke, situation of the evacuation route) and psychological factors (panic). (Li, Tang and Simpson, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Even in the same situation and conditions, people behaved differently based on factors of gender and age. </li></ul><ul><li>Ren et al (2005) found causes of evacuation failure to be: improper layout of the inner structure of the building; and that some occupants take unreasonable evacuation measures because of panic and unfamiliarity with the burning building. </li></ul>
  6. 6. How evacuation trials in Second Life may help <ul><li>May help persons to be better prepared to address hazard situations in a flexible manor: </li></ul><ul><li>Van de Walle and Turoff (2008) say in emergency situations, “individuals undergoing stress, anxiety, and psychological arousal tend to increase their reliance on internal hypotheses and focus on dominant cues to emit well-learnt responses ..the potential decision response to a crisis situation is to go by the book, based on learned responses .” (p. 296) also </li></ul><ul><li>They suggest “In order to counter this bias, crisis response teams must be encouraged and trained to make flexible and creative decisions.” (p. 296) </li></ul><ul><li>We propose our model and trials raise the awareness of the Building-B exits and that in time of emergency this would allow for more flexible response by those who are aware of such exits. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Survey One <ul><li>General information about the group </li></ul><ul><li>General knowledge of safety procedures, emergency experience, behavior and preparation for such situation. </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for virtual training and trial in Second Life </li></ul><ul><li>http://secondlife-project.blogspot.com/ </li></ul>
  8. 8. Pre-Trial Survey Responses Gender M:F 64%:36 % Age 18-25; 26-35; >35 54%; 36%; 10% Aware of safety procedures in workplace? 67% Yes; 33% No Ever been trained for safety procedures before? 72% Yes; 28% No Do you know where an emergency exit at your workplace or university is? 95% Yes; 5% No How regularly have safety procedures training? 33% biannually; 46% annually; 3% once in 6 months ; 18% never Experienced a fire alarm in the building? 44% Yes; 56% No Feel prepared for an emergency situation? 56% Yes; 44% No If not, what would make you more confident? 32% Practical training ; 5% Video training ; 27% Real experience ; 36% Virtual training Think that computers and virtual worlds could be an useful tool for such emergency training? 64% Yes ; 6% No ; 30% Don’t know Have you ever heard of the virtual world of Second Life? 15%Yes have used SL ; 45% Yes but have never used SL ; 40% No;
  9. 9. Design of Evacuation Trials <ul><li>The goals of our model and trial design are to improve the performance of participants to safely exit the building of study in the event of a fire hazard. </li></ul><ul><li>The trials should raise awareness of the layout of the building. </li></ul><ul><li>We designed a model allowing for variation of exit paths to be tested under conditions of: low visibility, or blocked path, while considering normal building layout. </li></ul><ul><li>We observed the behavior of participants in how they seek to exit the building. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Model of Building B in progress
  11. 11. Building B
  12. 12. Building B
  13. 13. Building B – fire and smoke
  14. 14. Two Trials <ul><li>Participants were asked to exit the building to the same target exit. </li></ul><ul><li>Trial 1 was to exit the building while starting in room 138. It was performed by 20 of the original 39 respondents. Trial 2 was to start in room 107 and had 19 respondent runs. </li></ul><ul><li>The floor plan and room numbers were the same as in the real building. </li></ul><ul><li>Does knowing the building or knowing the 3D software contribute to better performance? It seems both helped. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Trial 1 – routes taken
  16. 16. Trial 2 – routes taken
  17. 17. Participants who were familiar with video games had less trouble with moving the avatar initially. In the second trial participants reported more control of the avatar, but it was more difficult to find the exit from the start location. Nr. Factor 1: Factor 2: Trial 1 (sec) Trial 2 (seconds) 6 KB Use 17.88 28.48 9 KB N/SL 38.72 112.38 10 KB N/SL 85.85 77.87 11 Not N/SL 18.06 41.20 13 Not N/SL 220.00 101.69 14 Not N/SL 28.04 159.32 15 Not N/SL 30.77 160.00 20 Not N/SL 36.3 80.47 Average of those that know the building 34.16 66.18 Average of those that do not know the building 51.87 102.57 Average for those already using SL 25.83 52.17 Average for those new to SL 50.37 97.84
  18. 18. Survey Two <ul><li>Did participants find the exit successfully or not </li></ul><ul><li>Do they like the experience of the trial in Second Life? </li></ul><ul><li>What did the participants think about such simulation? </li></ul><ul><li>Was it realistic experience? </li></ul>
  19. 19. Post-Trial Survey Responses 1 Did you find the exit successfully? 63% -Yes no problem; 42% - some problems; 5% -No 2 How do you like/perform in this trial? 32% -Very much ; 68% -Liked it 0% -Didn’t like it ; 0% -Don’t know 3 Was it a realistic experience for you? 53% -Yes ; 16% -No; 31% -I don’t know 4 How long have you used Second Life? 74% -First time; 26% -For 3-12 months 0% -For 1-3 years ; 0% -Over 3 years 5 Have you seen Building-B before? 47% -Yes; 53% -No 7 What were the weaknesses (found lacking) for this simulation? (Select all that apply.) Selected by (#) of respondents. a) Realness (9) b) Crowded situation (9) c) Fire hot environment (3) d) Panic scenario (7) e) Not able to simulate lack of air and visibility (3) 9 Would you like to test or experience more safety procedure simulations in Second Life? 53% - Yes, sure; 32% - Probably yes 15% - Maybe, but some improvements are needed ; 0% - No, probably not; 0% - Surely not
  20. 20. How do the trials in SL address some of the limitations of live trials? <ul><li>1. Sustained costs - Could prove more interesting than a real life fire drill. All respondents to the post survey said they liked the trial and to some degree would be willing to do further tests in SL. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Limited accuracy – We applied the use of one person with SL building skills to the design of the model. The model was built in a single working day. This means that simulating new potential hazards could be done at low cost. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Short ‘shelf life’ – Again it is of little cost to change the model, in comparison to building redesigns. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Lack of design focus – We did not replicate real world threats, but live trials using real persons directing an avatar is more representative of live human behavior than a mathematical model based simulation. </li></ul><ul><li>5. Danger – Real danger is in particular eliminated during evacuation exercises in SL. </li></ul><ul><li>6. Poor reliability of individual trials – Can perform many trials . And if response to stimulus such as smoke produces different responses, other substitute stimuli can be tried (i.e. increasing volume of a siren). </li></ul>
  21. 21. Concluding Remarks <ul><li>Learning seemed to occur -- of how to better control movement of avatar in SL even after one trial. -- Participants seems more aware of the layout of the building after one trial. </li></ul><ul><li>Most considered the virtual building as real enough . -- we did not have to replicate the entire Building-B. An accurate floor plan and a few symbolic artifacts were enough to make the space look real. --Those with prior knowledge of the building did better in the both trials over those without. </li></ul><ul><li>Most difficult to simulate were the real effects of the hazard factors such as heat from fires or smoke making it more difficult to breath. So, behavioral response to “panic scenario” in response to these stimulus could not be observed . Also, the lack of “crowds” made it less realistic. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Further research <ul><li>Add factors to the model that will create a sense of urgency such as adding increasing siren sound. </li></ul><ul><li>Conduct trials with up to 25 avatars being placed in a building to begin evacuation at the same time and record the time to evacuate the entire building. This could simulate the feeling of being in a crowd . </li></ul><ul><li>Test of asymmetric information such as access to prior knowledge of the building. For example, a floor plan could be shown to one control group, while not showing it to a second trial group. </li></ul><ul><li>Allow participants to choose different exits to learn how they behave in light of virtual obstacles. </li></ul>

×