A State-of-the-Art Review on Empirical Data Collection for External Governed Pedestrians Complex Movement

Table 3

SWOT analysis for animal-based approaches versus human-based approaches.

Animal-Based Approaches
Strengths	Weaknesses
(i) Real panic experiments can be performed; (ii) Relative lower cost than human experiments; (iii) Can be more life-like than mathematical models	(i) Taxonomic differences in animals with humans; (ii) Less convincing to some crowd researchers in terms of contextual realism
Opportunities	Threats
(i) Biological intelligence can be beneficial to mankind e.g. ants show more coordination in panic escape than humans; (ii) Animal behaviors can be used as the education materials for children to augment their safety awareness in terms of evacuation; (iii) Resolving optimal design issue in panic escape	(i) The universal law for the scaling of different species of biological entities with various body sizes; (ii) Further analysis of the behavioural similarities and dissimilarities between animals and humans; (iii) The selection of organisms for different experimental design; (iv) Conduct experiments using panicking animals may arise debates from bestiarian
Human-Based Approaches
Strengths	Weaknesses
(i) Ground truth data of real pedestrians; (ii) Participants are more instructive than animals	(i) Panic experiments cannot be performed due to ethical and safety reasons; (ii) Contextual dependency
Opportunities	Threats
(i) Emerging virtual interactive techniques such as AR and VR can help examine human behaviors in more extreme scenarios	(i) Risk free/immigration experimental design methods; (ii) Physiological aspects of humans during collective movements should be further exploited