IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v49y2023ics1755534523000519.html

Evaluating the gap choice decisions of pedestrians in conflict situations in mass religious gatherings and controlled experimental setup – A pilot study

Author

Listed:
  • P S, Karthika
  • Verma, Ashish

Abstract

Previous studies on modelling the microscopic behaviour of pedestrians have focused on conflict resolution among pedestrians in pedestrian-pedestrian interactions. Many of these models propose alternate mechanisms to avoid conflicts by introducing repulsive forces between pedestrians or a set of predefined rules stating the precedence of movements to sidestep obstacles and other pedestrians. However, the possibility of formulating the decision-making mechanism pedestrians use to overcome conflicts as a gap-seeking behaviour has not been explored. In this study, resolving conflicts between opposing pedestrians is modelled as gap choice decisions made by individuals. Pedestrians looking for gaps or spaces in a crowd to facilitate their movement form the basis for such an analysis. The study compares pedestrians' gap acceptance behaviour across two scenarios: pedestrian movement in a field setup (Kumbh Mela) and a controlled experiment. Multiple gap choice decisions of individuals are modelled to understand the effect of individual-level heterogeneity on gap choices. Apart from the gap duration, spacing, position of gap, linear density, age, and presence of luggage significantly influenced the gap choices. Model validation is done using appropriate methods for both field and experimental data. The bootstrap method of internal validation and holdout validation is used to assess the performance of the estimated model on field data and experimental data, respectively. It is seen that the models have reasonable predictive and discriminative abilities. The analysis results also indicate that pedestrians tend to force gaps to facilitate movement in their natural state. Consequently, controlled experiments might have limitations in reproducing or motivating the participants to behave like a crowd.

Suggested Citation

  • P S, Karthika & Verma, Ashish, 2023. "Evaluating the gap choice decisions of pedestrians in conflict situations in mass religious gatherings and controlled experimental setup – A pilot study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:49:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000519
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000519
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanghamitra Das & Charles F. Manski & Mark D. Manuszak, 2005. "Walk or wait? An empirical analysis of street crossing decisions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 529-548, May.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," Artefactual Field Experiments 00458, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Sebastian Seriani & Taku Fujiyama & Catherine Holloway, 2017. "Exploring the pedestrian level of interaction on platform conflict areas at metro stations by real-scale laboratory experiments," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 100-118, January.
    4. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2010. "Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-224, February.
    5. Zhang, J. & Seyfried, A., 2014. "Comparison of intersecting pedestrian flows based on experiments," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 405(C), pages 316-325.
    6. Nikolai W F Bode & Stefan Holl & Wolfgang Mehner & Armin Seyfried, 2015. "Disentangling the Impact of Social Groups on Response Times and Movement Dynamics in Evacuations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Yamamoto, Hiroki & Yanagisawa, Daichi & Feliciani, Claudio & Nishinari, Katsuhiro, 2019. "Body-rotation behavior of pedestrians for collision avoidance in passing and cross flow," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 486-510.
    8. Parady, Giancarlos & Ory, David & Walker, Joan, 2021. "The overreliance on statistical goodness-of-fit and under-reliance on model validation in discrete choice models: A review of validation practices in the transportation academic literature," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    9. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Dirk Helbing & Lubos Buzna & Anders Johansson & Torsten Werner, 2005. "Self-Organized Pedestrian Crowd Dynamics: Experiments, Simulations, and Design Solutions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E., 2011. "Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 973-990, August.
    12. Roth, Alvin E., 1986. "Laboratory Experimentation in Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 245-273, October.
    13. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control Than Laboratory Experiments?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 462-466, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timothy N. Cason & Steven Y. Wu, 2019. "Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economics Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 743-758, July.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2019. "Laboratory experimentation and simulation of discrete direction choices: Investigating hypothetical bias, decision-rule effect and external validity based on aggregate prediction measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 134-157.
    3. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    5. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    7. John List, 2026. "Natural Field Experiments Published in 2025 on FieldExperiments.com," Natural Field Experiments 00833, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Martin G. Kocher & David Schindler & Stefan T. Trautmann & Yilong Xu, 2019. "Risk, time pressure, and selection effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 216-246, March.
    9. Greer K. Gosnell & John A. List & Robert Metcalfe, 2016. "A New Approach to an Age-Old Problem: Solving Externalities by Incenting Workers Directly," NBER Working Papers 22316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    11. John List, 2021. "2021 Summary Data of Artefactual Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Artefactual Field Experiments 00749, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Mabit, Stefan E., 2026. "Mixed logit applications in travel behaviour research," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Dana Suskind, 2019. "The science of using science: Towards an understanding of the threats to scaling experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00670, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Poudel, Niranjan & Singleton, Patrick A., 2024. "Willingness to pay for changes in travel time and work time: A stated choice experiment of US commuters," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5fhe3c1k6b8mu8jtd19s688u7s is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    17. Levin, Tova & Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2023. "A Glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 644-658.
    18. Gabriel Nova & Sander van Cranenburgh & Stephane Hess, 2024. "Understanding the decision-making process of choice modellers," Papers 2411.01704, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    19. Tat Y. Chan & Li Liao & Xiumin Martin & Zhengwei Wang, 2024. "Avoiding Peer Information and Its Effects on Charity Crowdfunding: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(4), pages 2272-2293, April.
    20. John List, 2026. "A Summary of Framed Field Experiments Published in 2025 on FieldExperiments.com," Framed Field Experiments 00832, The Field Experiments Website.
    21. John List, 2022. "2021 Summary Data of Natural Field Experiments Published on Fieldexperiments.com," Natural Field Experiments 00747, The Field Experiments Website.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:49:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.