skip to main content
10.1145/3424636.3426905acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmigConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Social Distancing Index: Evaluating Navigational Policies on Human Proximity using Crowd Simulations

Published:22 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The importance of social distancing for public health is well established. However, the policies and regulations regarding occupancy rates have not been designed with this in mind. While there are analytical tools and related measures that are used in practice to evaluate how the design of a built environment serves the needs of its intended occupants, these metrics cannot directly apply to the problem of preventing the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. By using a crowd-based simulator using three levels of behavior and agent control in a given environment, a novel evaluation metric for a space layout can be calculated to reflect the proclivity of maintaining a safe distance throughout the shopping experience. We refer to this metric as the Social Distancing Index (SDI), accounting for the occupancy throughput and number of distance-based violations found. Through a case study of a realistic retail store, we demonstrate the proposed platforms performance and output on multiple scenarios by changing agent-behavior, occupancy rate, and navigational guidelines.

References

  1. Glen Berseth, Muhammad Usman, Brandon Haworth, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Petros Faloutsos. 2015. Environment optimization for crowd evacuation. CAVW 26, 3-4 (2015), 377–386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Vincius J Cassol, Estêvão Smania Testa, Cláudio Rosito Jung, Muhammad Usman, Petros Faloutsos, Glen Berseth, Mubbasir Kapadia, Norman I Badler, and Soraia Raupp Musse. 2017. Evaluating and optimizing evacuation plans for crowd egress. CGA 37, 4 (2017), 60–71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Benoît Claude, Dimitri Perrin, and Heather J Ruskin. 2009. Considerations for a social and geographical framework for agent-based epidemics. In Computational Aspects of Social Networks. IEEE, 149–154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Geoffrey A. Fowler. [n.d.]. Smartphone data reveal which Americans are social distancing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/24/social-distancing-maps-cellphone-location/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Robert J Glass, Laura M Glass, Walter E Beyeler, and H Jason Min. 2006. Targeted social distancing designs for pandemic influenza. Emerging infectious diseases 12, 11 (2006), 1671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandon Haworth, Muhammad Usman, Glen Berseth, Mahyar Khayatkhoei, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Petros Faloutsos. 2017. CODE: Crowd-optimized design of environments. CAVW 28, 6 (2017), e1749.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael Brandon Haworth, Muhammad Usman, Davide Schaumann, Nilay Chakraborty, Glen Berseth, Petros Faloutsos, and Mubbasir Kapadia. 2020. Gamification of Crowd-Driven Environment Design. CGA (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dirk Helbing and Peter Molnar. 1995. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical review E 51, 5 (1995), 4282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mubbasir Kapadia, Nathan Marshak, and Norman I Badler. 2014. ADAPT: The agent development and prototyping testbed. TVCG1(2014), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mubbasir Kapadia, Nuria Pelechano, Jan Allbeck, and Norm Badler. 2015. Virtual crowds: Steps toward behavioral realism. Synthesis lectures on visual computing 7, 4 (2015), 1–270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mubbasir Kapadia, Shawn Singh, William Hewlett, and Petros Faloutsos. 2009. Egocentric affordance fields in pedestrian steering. In I3D. ACM, 215–223.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ioannis Karamouzas, Peter Heil, Pascal Van Beek, and Mark H Overmars. 2009. A predictive collision avoidance model for pedestrian simulation. In MIG. Springer, 41–52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David B Lantrip. 1993. Predicting satisfaction with the office environment by measuring constraints to worker activities. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 37. SAGE, 489–493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sang Min Lee, Won Sub Kang, Ah-Rang Cho, Tae Kim, and Jin Park. 2018. Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry 87 (2018), 123 – 127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ming C Lin, Avneesh Sud, Jur Van den Berg, Russell Gayle, Sean Curtis, Hengchin Yeh, Stephen Guy, Eric Andersen, Sachin Patil, Jason Sewall, 2008. Real-time path planning and navigation for multi-agent and crowd simulations. In MIG. Springer, 23–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Marc Lipsitch, Lyn Finelli, Richard T Heffernan, Gabriel M Leung, and Stephen Redd. 2011. Improving the evidence base for decision making during a pandemic: the example of 2009 influenza A/H1N1. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science 9, 2(2011), 89–115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mehdi Moussaïd, Mubbasir Kapadia, Tyler Thrash, Robert W Sumner, Markus Gross, Dirk Helbing, and Christoph Hölscher. 2016. Crowd behaviour during high-stress evacuations in an immersive virtual environment. The Royal Society Interface 13, 122 (2016), 20160414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. World Health Organization. [n.d.]. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Xiaoshan Pan, Charles S Han, Ken Dauber, and Kincho H Law. 2007. A multi-agent based framework for the simulation of human and social behaviors during emergency evacuations. AI & Society 22, 2 (2007), 113–132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Xue Bin Peng, Glen Berseth, KangKang Yin, and Michiel Van De Panne. 2017. Deeploco: Dynamic locomotion skills using hierarchical deep reinforcement learning. TOG 36, 4 (2017), 41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Craig W Reynolds. 1987. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Vol. 21. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaeyoung Shin and Jin-Kook Lee. 2019. Indoor Walkability Index: BIM-enabled approach to Quantifying building circulation. Automation in Construction 106 (2019), 102845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102845Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Anna Sieben, Jette Schumann, and Armin Seyfried. 2017. Collective phenomena in crowds—Where pedestrian dynamics need social psychology. PLoS one 12, 6 (2017), e0177328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Alasdair Turner, Maria Doxa, David O’sullivan, and Alan Penn. 2001. From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design 28, 1 (2001), 103–121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Muhammad Usman, Davide Schaumann, Brandon Haworth, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Petros Faloutsos. 2019. Joint Exploration and Analysis of High-Dimensional Design–Occupancy Templates. In Motion, Interaction and Games. 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jur Van den Berg, Ming Lin, and Dinesh Manocha. 2008. Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation. In Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 1928–1935.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yuzhen Zhang, Bin Jiang, Jiamin Yuan, and Yanyun Tao. 2020. The impact of social distancing and epicenter lockdown on the COVID-19 epidemic in mainland China: A data-driven SEIQR model study. medRxiv (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    MIG '20: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games
    October 2020
    190 pages
    ISBN:9781450381710
    DOI:10.1145/3424636

    Copyright © 2020 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: 22 November 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate-9of-9submissions,100%

    Upcoming Conference

    MIG '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format