How do we wait? Fundamentals, characteristics and modeling implications Conference on Traffic and Granular Flow 2015 Michael J. Seitz1,2 , Stefan Seer3 , Silvia Klettner3 , Oliver Handel2 , Gerta Köster1 1 Munich
University of Applied Sciences Universität München 3 AIT Austrian Institute of Technology 2 Technische
28 October 2015
Outline
1. waiting behavior 2. background from social sciences 3. observation of a train platform 4. heuristic decision rules 5. future directions 6. summary
3/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
What is waiting behavior?
Definition Waiting is the behavior of individuals remaining at a position in order to pass time until an event they expect occurs.
4/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Where do people wait?
Waiting behaviors are observed in transportation systems, events, all gatherings that include delays, etc.
5/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Relevance in pedestrian simulations
I
Davidich et al. (2013) studied waiting zones in a cellular automaton.
I
Johansson et al. (2015) introduced waiting pedestrians in the social force model.
å The relevance of waiting pedestrians has been recognized. å However, how real pedestrians choose their waiting position has been neglected.
6/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
The meaning of space
7/18
I
Both objects and spaces convey information (Ruesch and Kees, 1956).
I
What distinguishes one environment from another is “the nature of the rules embodied or encoded in it” (Rapoport, 1977, p.14).
I
The environment provides possibilities for choices by increasing or decreasing the probability for activities and behaviors (Rapoport, 1977).
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Spatial social interactions
8/18
I
Individuals regulate their behaviors more in public environments (Matsumoto, 2012).
I
The whereabouts of an individual depend on the social characteristics of the surrounding environment (Schelling, 1978).
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Spatial social distances
P UB L IC S P A C E
I
I
It is the social environment and cultural accepted norms that regulate behavior and social interactions.
S OC IA L S P A C E
PERSONAL SPACE
Hall (1966) proposed four characteristic distances (see figure).
INTIMATE SPACE 1.5 ft (0.45 m) 4 ft (1.2 m)
Figure Source: Wikimedia – “Personal_Space.svg” Author: “WebHamster” License: Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
12 ft (3.6 m)
25 ft (7.6 m)
9/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Spatial social distances
I
Influences may be grouped into two categories: push and pull factors.
I
Examples are: I
I
10/18
interpersonal distances to social group members (pull factors) or to non-social group members (push factors) safety distance to an arriving train or a road (push factors) or positions close to an information screen (pull factors)
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Observation of a train platform
11/18
I
A train station platform in Vienna was observed in the morning (7:00 am) and evening (6:30 pm).
I
Video recordings were taken from an oblique view above the platform.
I
The waiting positions of 38 (morning) and 91 (evening) passengers were annotated manually.
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Spatial occupancy
Measure of occupancy - Morning
Measure of occupancy - Evening 6
4
0.1
2 0
0 0
5
10
15
y [m]
y [m]
6
4
0.1
2 0
0 0
x [m]
5
10
15
x [m]
Figure: Percentage of time spent by passengers at positions. 12/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Distances kept Morning
Evening
40
frequency
frequency
40 20 0
20 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
social distance [m]
6
8
10
Evening
15
frequency
frequency
4
social distance [m]
Morning
15
2
10 5 0
10 5 0
0
1
2
distance to edge [m]
3
0
1
2
3
distance to edge [m]
Figure: Top: distance to the next waiting passenger. Bottom: distance to the platform edge of the chosen position.
13/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Time remained Mean dwell time [s] - Morning
Mean dwell time [s] - Evening 6 50
4 2
y [m]
y [m]
6
0
0 0
5
10
50
4 2
0
0
15
0
5
x [m]
10
15
x [m]
Figure: Mean time remained at positions of the platform. Morning
Evening
20
frequency
frequency
20 10 0
10 0
0
20
40
60
time remained [s]
80
0
20
40
60
80
time remained [s]
Figure: Time remained at one position. 14/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Heuristic decision making
1. Get close to where the train arrives. 2. Keep a safety distance to the platform edge. 3. Keep a social distance to other passengers. 4. Stay away from the escalators.
15/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Future directions
16/18
I
Collect more data and compare behavior in different scenarios.
I
Formalize and implement heuristic decision making.
I
Validate the model with empirical data.
I
Study the resulting emergent behavior in pedestrian simulations.
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
Summary
17/18
I
Waiting behavior is important for several pedestrian scenarios.
I
Simulation approaches lack a model of where pedestrians wait.
I
Social science gives some insights on how humans distribute in the environment.
I
The empirical observation revealed several features of waiting behavior.
I
We proposed heuristic rules that capture this behavior.
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015
References Davidich, M., Geiss, F., Mayer, H. G., Pfaffinger, A., and Royer, C. (2013). Waiting zones for realistic modelling of pedestrian dynamics: A case study using two major german railway stations as examples. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 37:210–222. Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday. Johansson, F., Peterson, A., and Tapani, A. (2015). Waiting pedestrians in the social force model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 419:95–107. Matsumoto, D. (2012). The psychological dimensions of context. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 2(2):611–622. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Ruesch, J. and Kees, W. (1956). Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles. Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. FELS Lectures on Public Policy Analysis. WW Norton & Company. 18/18
Michael J. Seitz, Stefan Seer, Silvia Klettner, Oliver Handel, Gerta Köster
28 October 2015
TGF 2015