Efficiency Model for Pedestrian Overpasses Based on Movement Behavioral Patterns Using Game Theory

Homayouni, Ahmad; Divandari, Hassan; Rahimov, Kamran; Rahimi, Hooman

doi:10.22034/ijumes.2026.2085789.1356

Efficiency Model for Pedestrian Overpasses Based on Movement Behavioral Patterns Using Game Theory

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ahmad Homayouni ¹

Hassan Divandari ¹

Kamran Rahimov ²

Hooman Rahimi ³

¹ Department of Civil Engineering, CT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, University of Eyvanekey, Eyvanekey, Iran

³ Department of civil engineering, ShQ.C, Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods, Iran

10.22034/ijumes.2026.2085789.1356

Abstract

Urban pedestrian infrastructure continues to pose a fundamental challenge in contemporary transportation and urban design research, particularly with regard to the gap between engineering provision and actual user behavior. Pedestrian overpasses are frequently underutilized despite their intended safety benefits, revealing a critical disconnect between physical design logic and behavioral decision-making. This study addresses the problem of how pedestrian bridge efficiency can be meaningfully evaluated beyond conventional engineering standards by incorporating behavioral, perceptual, and strategic dimensions of route choice. The primary objective is to develop a multidimensional analytical model the Pedestrian Bridge Efficiency Index (PPEI) grounded in game theory and movement behavioral patterns. The methodology adopts a sequential mixed-methods design integrating a four-round Delphi expert consultation, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) weighting, and agent-based computational simulation. Theoretical foundations draw from the Theory of Planned Behavior, environmental psychology, spatial movement analysis, and non-cooperative game theory, conceptualizing pedestrian–vehicle interaction as a strategic decision environment governed by bounded rationality. Findings from the Delphi process converged on six high-consensus indicators: Safety Level, Pedestrian–Vehicle Separation, Distance from Urban Nodes, Connection to Pedestrian Paths, Perceived Safety, and Total Crossing Time. FAHP weighting confirmed Safety Level (w = 0.22) and Pedestrian–Vehicle Separation (w = 0.20) as the dominant efficiency determinants, together accounting for 42% of the composite index. The study concludes that pedestrian bridge efficiency is an emergent behavioral property shaped by the interaction of spatial design, human cognition, and traffic dynamics. Future bridge planning should prioritize perceptual safety and spatial integration as primary design objectives, informed by behavioral modeling tools.

Highlights

· Pedestrian bridge efficiency is conceptualized as a function of Safety, Accessibility, and Behavioral Compatibility, formalized as the Pedestrian Bridge Efficiency Index (PPEI) a replicable framework for evidence-based urban infrastructure planning.

· Pedestrian–vehicle interaction is modeled as a non-cooperative game under bounded rationality, where Nash equilibrium conditions explain why pedestrians prefer at-grade crossing even when an overpass is structurally available.

· A four-round Delphi process converged on six high-priority indicators Safety Level (w = 0.22), Pedestrian–Vehicle Separation (w = 0.20), Distance from Urban Nodes (w = 0.18), Connection to Pedestrian Paths (w = 0.16), Perceived Safety (w = 0.13), and Total Crossing Time (w = 0.11), validated by FAHP weighting with all consistency ratios below 0.10.

· Design interventions targeting perceptual safety such as improved visibility, clear circulation paths, and intuitive spatial organization are identified as more behaviorally effective than purely structural modifications to pedestrian bridge infrastructure.

· Bridge location and network connectivity operationalized through Distance from Urban Nodes and Connection to Pedestrian Paths collectively account for 34% of the PPEI weight, underscoring that spatial positioning within the pedestrian desire-line network is as critical as safety engineering.

Keywords

Behavioral Decision-Making

Delphi&ndash

FAHP method

Game Theory

pedestrian bridge efficiency

urban movement patterns

· Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

· Arafat, M. E., Kaye, S.-A., Schroeter, R., & Haque, M. (2025). A game theoretical model to examine pedestrian behaviour and safety on unsignalised slip lanes using AI-based video analytics. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 217, 108034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2025.108034

· Batty, M. (2018). Inventing future cities. MIT Press.

· Ben-Akiva, M., & Bierlaire, M. (2019). Discrete choice models with applications to departure time and route choice. In R. Hall (Ed.), Handbook of transportation science (pp. 7–37). Springer.

· Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Suppl. 3), 7280–7287. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082080899

· Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9

· Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.

· Camerer, C. F. (2019). Behavioral game theory: Thinking, learning, and teaching. In S. Huck (Ed.), Advances in economics and econometrics. Cambridge University Press.

· Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2

· Charles, A., & Nicholas, J. (2006). Pedestrian overpasses and their effect on road safety. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132(5), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2006)132:5(365)

· Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

· Crooks, A., Heppenstall, A., Malleson, N., & Manley, E. (2019). Agent-based modelling and the city. In S. Shi, M. Batty, & L. Goodchild (Eds.), Urban informatics. Springer.

· Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2015). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

· Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (6th ed.). Island Press.

· Glimcher, P. W. (2021). Foundations of neuroeconomic analysis. Oxford University Press.

· Gössling, S. (2016). Urban transport justice. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.002

· Hamed, M. M. (2001). Analysis of pedestrians' behavior at pedestrian crossings. Safety Science, 38(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8

· Handy, S. (2022). Walking and cycling for transportation: State of knowledge and research priorities. Transportation Research Part A, 157, 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.12.017

· Helbing, D., Farkas, I., & Vicsek, T. (2000). Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407, 487–490. https://doi.org/10.1038/35035023

· Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.

· Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(1), 29–66. https://doi.org/10.1068/b200029

· Hoogendoorn, S. P., & Bovy, P. H. L. (2000). Gas-kinetic modeling and simulation of pedestrian flows. Transportation Research Record, 1710, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.3141/1710-04

· Jiang, B., & Claramunt, C. (2004). Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environment and Planning B, 31(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1068/b306

· Lin, Y., Tsai, F., & Wang, J. (2020). Applying MCDM to evaluate pedestrian infrastructure performance. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 146(1), 04019038. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000543

· Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley.

· Litman, T. (2022). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

· Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form. MIT Press.

· Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305

· Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48

· Osborne, M. J. (2020). An introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press.

· Penn, A. (2003). Space syntax and spatial cognition. Environment and Behavior, 35(1), 30–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238864

· Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002

· Rahmati, Y., & Talebpour, A. (2018). Learning-based game theoretical framework for modeling pedestrian motion. Physical Review E, 98(3), 032312. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032312

· Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. SAGE Publications.

· Räsänen, M., Lajunen, T., Alticafarbay, F., & Aydin, C. (2007). Pedestrian self-reports of factors influencing the use of pedestrian bridges. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(5), 969–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.02.012

· Reisi, M., Aye, L., & Rajabifard, A. (2023). Evaluating pedestrian infrastructure performance using MCDM. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88, 104296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104296

· Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Wiley. https://archive.org/details/modelsofmansocia00simo

· Sun, X., Lin, K., Wang, Y., Ma, S., & Lu, H. (2022). A study on pedestrian–vehicle conflict at unsignalized crosswalks based on game theory. Sustainability, 14(13), 7652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137652

· Wang, Y., Ge, J., & Comber, A. (2023). An agent-based simulation model of pedestrian evacuation based on Bayesian Nash equilibrium. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26(3), 6. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.5037

· Wang, Z., Li, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Modeling pedestrian decision-making using evolutionary game theory in urban traffic systems. Sustainability, 14(9), 5123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095123

· Xu, M., Chen, A., & Nie, Y. (2020). A game-theoretic model of pedestrian–vehicle interactions at crossings. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 134, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2020.02.001

· Yannis, G., Papadimitriou, E., & Theofilatos, A. (2017). Pedestrian gap acceptance for mid-block street crossing. Transportation Planning and Technology, 36(5), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.818274

· Zhao, X., Li, Z., Ci, Y., & Du, Y. (2021). Investigating pedestrians' crossing behavior when encountering turning vehicles. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 13(4), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2019.1611783

· Zhu, S., & Levinson, D. (2015). Do people use the shortest path? An empirical test of Wardrop's first principle. PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0134322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134322