skip to main content
10.1145/1054972.1055062acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Applying the lessons of the attack on the world trade center, 11th September 2001, to the design and use of interactive evacuation simulations

Published:02 April 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

The collapse of buildings, such as terminal 2E at Paris' Charles de Gaule Airport, and of fires, such as the Rhode Island, Station Night Club tragedy, has focused public attention on the safety of large public buildings. Initiatives in the United States and in Europe have led to the development of interactive simulators that model evacuation from these buildings. The tools avoid some of the ethical and legal problems from simulating evacuations; many people were injured during the 1993 evacuation of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. They also use many concepts that originate within the CHI communities. For instance, some simulators use simple task models to represent the occupants' goal structures as they search for an available exit. However, the recent release of the report from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (the '9/11 commission') has posed serious questions about the design and use of this particular class of interactive systems. This paper argues that simulation research needs to draw on insights from the CHI communities in order to meet some the challenges identified by the 9/11 commission.

References

  1. UK Atomic Energy Authority, A Technical Summary of the AEA Egress Code, AET/NOIL/27812001/002(2), Issue 1, Warrington UK, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. W. Baker, J. Barnett, C. Marrion, J. Milke and H. Nelson, Chapter 2: WTC1 and WTC2. In Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations and Recommendations. Washington D.C., 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Batty, J. Desyllas, and E. Duxbury. Safety in Numbers? Modeling Crowds and Designing Control for the Notting Hill Carnival. Urban Studies, (40)8:1573--1590, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. UK Building Research Establishment, Evacuation Modeling: GridFlow and CRISP, Watford, UK, 2004. Available on: http://www.bre.co.uk/frs/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P.J. Camp, J.M. Hudson, R.B. Keldorph, S. Lewis and E.D. Mynatt, Supporting communication and collaboration practices in safety-critical situations. ACM CHI 2000, v.2:249--250, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J.M. Carroll, Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. MIT Press, Boston, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J.M. Carroll, R.L. Mack, S.P. Robertson and M.B. Rosson, Binding Objects to Scenarios of Use. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (41)1:243--276, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H.H. Clark and S.E. Brennan. Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, editors, Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pages 127--149. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. K.H. Drager, G. Lovas, J. Wiklund, H. Soma, D. Duong, A. Violas and V. Laneres, EVACSIM - A comprehensive evacuation simulation tool. In Proc. of the 1992 Emergency Management and Engineering Conf., Soc. for Computer Simulation, Orlando, Florida, 101--108, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. G. Fischer, A.C. Lemke, T. Mastaglio and A. I. Morch, Critiquing in Cooperative Problem Solving. ACM Trans on Information Systems, (9)2:123--151, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S.R. Fussell, R. E. Kraut, F.J.Lerch, W.L. Scherlis, M.M. McNally and J.J. Cadiz (1998). Coordination, overload and team performance. In Proc. of ACM CSCW'98, Seattle, Washington, 275--284, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Goldenstein, M. Karavelas, D. Metaxas, L. Guibas, E. Aaron and A. Goswami, Scalable nonlinear dynamical systems for agent steering and crowd simulation. Computers & Graphics (25)6:983--998, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. Grudin, Groupware and Social Dynamics, Comms. of the ACM, (37)1:93--105, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Haynes and S. Sen, Cases to Resolve Conflicts and Improve Group Behavior. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (48)1:31--49, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B.D. Jacobs and P. Hart, Disaster at Hillsborough stadium. In D.J. Parker & J.W. Handmer (eds.), Hazard Management and Emergency Planning, James & James Science, London, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. Latman, TCPP Personality Profile, In 4th Triennial International Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference, Parque das Natoes, Lisbon, Portugal, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. Laurillard, Interactive Media, Ellis Horwood, London, UK, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. W.E. Mackay, Users and Customizable Software: A Co-Adaptive Phenomenon, MIT, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Mantei, R.M. Baecker, A. Sellen, W.A.S. Buxton, and T. Milligan, Experiences in the Use of Media Spaces. ACM CHI 1991, 203--208, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H.A. Murray, Explorations in Personality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1938.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. B.A. Nardi, Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and HCI, MIT Press, Boston, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. US National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission Report, Washington DC, 2004. Available on: http://www.9-11commission.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P.A. Thompson and E.W. Marchant, Computer and fluid modeling of evacuation. Safety Science, (18)277--289, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. K.D. Wu and L.A. Clark, Relations between personality traits and self-reports of daily behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, (37)231--256, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Applying the lessons of the attack on the world trade center, 11th September 2001, to the design and use of interactive evacuation simulations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2005
      928 pages
      ISBN:1581139985
      DOI:10.1145/1054972

      Copyright © 2005 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 April 2005

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '05 Paper Acceptance Rate93of372submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader