Y” is -0.442.Table three. The regression outcomes of random parameter logit model. Independent Variable Dist Pedestrian flow Crowd density Coefficient C6 Ceramide Protocol Regular Deviation 0.016 0.078 0.105 Z p 0.000 0.002 0.000 95 Self-assurance Interval [-0.132, -0.070] [-0.388, -0.084] eight of [-0.648, -0.237]Sustainability 2021, 132,-0.101 0.236 -0.-6.43 three.04 -4.Note: Z stands for statistics of normal standard distribution; p 0.05 is considerable.Figure 2. The imply estimation of the efficiency coefficient. Figure 2. The mean estimation from the efficiency coefficient.The p-values in the 3 influencing factors were less than 0.05, indicating that the The p-values in the three influencing things were much less than 0.05, indicating that the imply coefficient is substantial, as shown in Table 3. The values of “Dist” and “Crowd mean coefficient is considerable, as shown in Table three. The values of “Dist” and “Crowd density” coefficients have been -0.101 and -0.442, that are adverse, indicating that the bigger density” coefficients had been -0.101 and -0.442, that are indicating that the larger their values are, the smaller the probability that the exit will likely be chosen. The worth of your their values are, the smaller sized the probability that the exit will probably be selected. The value of the “Pedestrian flow” coefficient was 0.236, which can be optimistic, indicating that the larger the “Pedestrian flow” coefficient was 0.236, which can be constructive, indicating that the larger the value is, the higher the probability that the exit are going to be chosen. value is, the higher the probability that the exit will likely be selected. four.two. The Quantitative Evaluation of Choice Preference heterogeneity four.2. The Quantitative Evaluation of Selection Preference Heterogeneity The outcomes in Table 3 PHA-543613 Protocol cannot reflect regardless of whether the influencing issue coefficient may be the results in Table 3 can’t reflect no matter if the influencing issue coefficient is random; which is, whether there’s heterogeneity in preference. Table four is additional derived random; that’s, whether or not there is certainly heterogeneity in preference. Table 4 is further derived from Table three, that is the statistical outcome of the standard deviation of the influencing factor coefficient, and its final results can reflect no matter if preference heterogeneity exists. Inside the final results, the p-values have been significantly less than 0.05, which were significant, indicating that the coefficients of “Dist”, “Crowd density” and “Pedestrian flow” are the random coefficientsSustainability 2021, 13,8 offrom Table three, which can be the statistical outcome in the standard deviation of the influencing aspect coefficient, and its results can reflect whether preference heterogeneity exists. Within the outcomes, the p-values have been less than 0.05, which have been considerable, indicating that the coefficients of “Dist”, “Crowd density” and “Pedestrian flow” are the random coefficients within the utility function. The influence of evacuation elements on utility is diverse for different passengers; that is certainly, there is certainly heterogeneity.Table 4. The typical deviation regression results of random parameter logit model coefficients. Independent Variable Dist Pedestrian flow Crowd density Coefficient 0.119 0.890 0.396 Standard Deviation 0.021 0.221 0.134 Z 5.67 4.03 two.96 p 0.000 0.000 0.003 95 Confidence Interval [0.084, 0.167] [0.548, 1.447] [0.204, 0.770]Note: Z stands for statistics of normal typical distribution; p 0.05 is substantial.Sustainability 2021, 132,In line with the estimated random coefficient logit model described above, the marginal probability distr.