**4. Earthquake simulation model: A proposal for future works**

The previous sections described the panic in crowds' phenomenon, both in its theoretical aspects and its practical issues. The collective behavior studies shown earlier were used as basis for the simulation model proposed in Section 3. Also, the main concepts regarding multi-agent based simulations were also presented. The computational model was tuned for a fire incident. Could it be feasible to do the same thing for earthquakes?

20 Will-be-set-by-IN-TECH

The Swarm Framework does not provide an Expert Systems' support, so the JESS (Friedman-Hill, 2009) (Java Expert Systems Shell) library was applied. FuzzyJ (Brown, 2009)

In order to keep the simulation "random" and controlled at the same time, a set of ten random seeds were chosen. Since the simulation was run ten times, for each simulation run a specific

The usage of a multi-agent simulation framework as Swarm allows the developer to think more about the simulation itself rather than the crosscut concerns, such as graphics. Figure 8 shows a screen shot of the simulation. All the graphical elements were drawn by Swarm Framework. Each colorful dot represents an agent, while the red area on the left is the threat

Since the model is social-cognitive, the best validation approach is by analyzing the dynamic behavior of the simulation and checking if such behavior is coherent with the theory. The data gathered during the simulation combined with its dynamic behavior is used to validate the conceptual model. Swarm displays the physical environment as an animated 2D grid (lattice),

The previous sections described the panic in crowds' phenomenon, both in its theoretical aspects and its practical issues. The collective behavior studies shown earlier were used as basis for the simulation model proposed in Section 3. Also, the main concepts regarding multi-agent based simulations were also presented. The computational model was tuned for

random seed was used to keep the simulation analysis consistent.

and such animation provides the dynamic aspects of the simulation.

**4. Earthquake simulation model: A proposal for future works**

a fire incident. Could it be feasible to do the same thing for earthquakes?

Fig. 8. Simulation Screen Shot

was used for the fuzzy logic rules.

(fire in this example).

In order to answer this question, a discussion about the definition of disaster must happen. Once again, Quarantelli provided a study about disasters and earthquakes in (Quarantelli, 1981). The first part of the aforementioned paper pondered about the definition of disaster and how researchers usually face the matter.

According to Quarantelli, some researchers have a biased and habitual view of disasters which partially blinds them from other possibilities. There would be two ways of analyzing disasters: focusing in the agents that caused the disaster or taking a more generic approach.

Quarantelli identified seven conceptions of disaster. Each conception analyzes disaster events through different approaches. Some of these approaches are related, but they are focused in distinct elements of the disaster:


The answer for the question proposed at the beginning of this chapter is yes, it is possible to apply the model presented in Section 3 for other types of disasters. However some minor

Simulating Collective Behavior in Natural Disaster Situations: A Multi-Agent Approach 457

• The threat in a fire incident has physical properties that can be modeled in a simulation as if it was a physical object. Therefore, the fire can be seen, smelled and even heard which implies that the agents can get these physical properties right from the environment and make assumptions on them. An earthquake disaster cannot be turned to a physical object: the whole environment can be felt by the agents. Also, the agent does not measure how dangerous the situation is by looking at the basic physical properties in the same way for

• Although the earthquake is no longer "visible" as an object of its own, it is still visible and noticeable by objects falling and structures crumbling. Also, people still can talk about and discuss their feelings and impressions about the event they are going through, keeping the

• Some basic attributes used by the agents for decision making, such as distance from the threat, are no longer relevant. New attributes and variables must be created, such as the tremor perception. On the other hand, some variables, such as the agent's experience in panic situations, become stronger and even more relevant for the decision making process. Dangerousness and nervosism keep their relevance and usefulness for this simulation; • The definition of exit as a safe haven remains valid up to a certain level: some buildings have regions that may be used as a safe haven, such as a pillar or under a table. For simplification purposes, the best choice for safety could be remained as the exit of the

• Finally, a fire incident could last from minutes up to hours. The simulation presented previously showed a fire incident that last 5 to 6 minutes. An earthquake incident usually

The changes mentioned earlier do not imply a physical approach to earthquake disasters because all the collective behavior and panic in crowds' elements (such as the collective behavior stages, the collective mind and so on) remain the same. Besides, these changes can be described as parameters of the simulation and hence the model described in this chapter

The panic in crowds' phenomenon has been studied for decades by many researchers. Such study is important for predicting and evaluating human behavior patterns in disasters. Although natural disasters are becoming more predictable, their outcomes cannot be easily foreseen. Panic in crowds works as a complex system, which implies that analyzing each individual and element alone does not provide the big picture required to understand the event as a whole. A broader view can notice the behavioral patterns that emerge from the interactions among individuals and it is more suitable for studying hazardous events, such as

Simulating a disaster in real-life is dangerous and unethical. The usage of computer simulations allows the disaster event to happen in a controlled environment with no human

lasts only a few minutes not taking the aftershocks into consideration (Bolt, 1973).

changes must be done in order to use the model properly for an earthquake disaster:

a fire incident and an earthquake;

building;

**5. Conclusions**

floods and earthquakes.

threat into the communication domain;

could be accepted as a framework for panic events.


These concepts ranged from a purely physical approach to social related approaches and a social behavior approach. However, the concepts can be analyzed on a second point of view: the first concepts are more physical-specific centric, which means the physical component is relevant and in order to study the event a very specific look is required. A diverse physical agent implies a diverse analysis.

In turn, the final concepts are more social-generic centric, which lead to more generalized perception of disasters, an attempt to find common elements between disasters caused by different physical agents.

In a science committee which discussed the similarities between different types of disasters, Quarantelli pointed out that

"The comparisons attempted clearly showed a conscious belief that trying to perceive phenomena which are not usually grouped together within the same framework, might prevent us from being partially blind in the way it was stated at the beginning of this paper" (Quarantelli, 1981).

In other words, when the researcher sees disasters in a generalized perspective it is possible to notice certain elements that could not be seen if the focus was just in a specific kind of disaster. Quarantelli's statement key word is **framework**. If a framework is designed for disasters in general, that means it could be applied to any sort of disaster with minimal effort.

Quarantelli endorsed a social-generic centric view for disasters, especially when "the problems are divided by time stage, by functions or levels of response"(Quarantelli, 1981). He mentioned Ralph Turner (from the Emergent Norm Theory) who stated "that much of what we know about how people respond to threats and warnings for other dangerous possibilities, is equally applicable to prediction scenarios for earthquakes". On the other hand, that does not imply that the specific study of earthquakes is unnecessary; seismologists still need to analyze earthquakes as much detailed as possible, treating earthquakes as disaster agents. For social and behavioral scientists, though, the best approach is accepting earthquake as members of a more generic class.

The answer for the question proposed at the beginning of this chapter is yes, it is possible to apply the model presented in Section 3 for other types of disasters. However some minor changes must be done in order to use the model properly for an earthquake disaster:


The changes mentioned earlier do not imply a physical approach to earthquake disasters because all the collective behavior and panic in crowds' elements (such as the collective behavior stages, the collective mind and so on) remain the same. Besides, these changes can be described as parameters of the simulation and hence the model described in this chapter could be accepted as a framework for panic events.
