Industrial Design-Driven Exploration of the Impact Mechnism of Fire Evacuation Efficiency in High-Rise Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study constructs a comprehensive analytical framework for fire evacuation efficiency in high-rise buildings based on risk management theory, environment-behavior relationship theory, and stress-cognition theory, which provides empirical support for fire escape management in high-rise buildings. The paper can be accepted before minor revise.

1. Case studies should be conducted to verify the reliability of the method.

2. The scientific novelty of the work should be emphasized in both the introduction and conclusion sections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful review of our manuscript and the valuable suggestions you have provided. Your affirmation of the research value of our study is very encouraging, and the suggestions you have made are profound and pertinent. We have carefully revised and improved the manuscript according to your suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:

Comment 1: Regarding the suggestion to supplement case study validation:

"Case studies should be conducted to verify the reliability of the method. Add this in the last part of p20, Section 5.3. Research Limitations and Future Directions..."

Response: We fully agree with your viewpoint. Case studies are a crucial way to verify the external validity and practicality of the model. Following your guidance, we have added the following statement at the end of Section 5.3 "Research Limitations and Future Directions" on page 20:

"Future research can incorporate detailed case studies of actual high-rise building fires or evacuation drills to further validate the reliability and generalizability of the proposed model and measurement tools."

Comment 2: Regarding the suggestion to emphasize the scientific novelty of the work: "The scientific novelty of the work should be emphasized in both the introduction and conclusion sections."
    Response: We are very grateful for pointing this out. To more clearly highlight the scientific value and methodological innovation of our study, we have added corresponding content in both the introduction and conclusion sections.

In the introduction section (page 3, second to last paragraph), we have added:

"This study integrates Delphi expert argumentation, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to construct a measurement model with good reliability and validity, ensuring the systematicness of the research process and the scientific nature of the conclusions."

In the conclusion section (page 18, end of Section 5.1), we have added:

"The scientificness of this study is reflected in its solid theoretical foundation, rigorous mixed research methods, and empirical testing process based on real fire experience data, providing reliable theoretical and empirical support for high-rise building fire evacuation research."

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your careful guidance. Your valuable suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our study. We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to ensure that all modifications have been properly implemented. We kindly ask you to review the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Kaiyuan Guan

Corresponding Author: Duanduan Liu, Hanyang University, liuduanduan5@hanyang.ac.kr

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript critically examines the efficiency of fire evacuation in high-rise residential buildings. It presents a comprehensive structural equation model (SEM) grounded in risk management, environment-behavior interaction, and stress-cognition theory. The empirical design is methodologically sound, the sample size is robust, and the statistical analysis is rigorous. Nonetheless, there are some issues that must be addressed to strengthen the study’s validity, generalizability, and theoretical contribution.

Comment 1. Literature review: While the literature review is extensive within Chinese and U.S. contexts, it lacks engagement with global fire safety standards and regulatory frameworks such as NFPA, ISO, or EN standards. Incorporating these would strengthen the study’s relevance and applicability for a wider audience.

Comment 2. Methodology: The study mentions a three-round Delphi process for refining the measurement items, yet fails to specify how experts were selected, their areas of expertise, or the criteria for inclusion. These omissions limit the transparency and replicability of the methodology.

Comment 3. Sample Characteristcs: The sample includes 58.9% participants working in fire-related fields, which introduces potential response bias. Their professional training likely influences their perceptions and behaviors in fire emergencies, thus limiting the generalizability of findings to the broader population. This point should be clearly addressed in the Limitations section.

Comment 4. Ethical approval details (IRB statement) are missing and should be clarified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your in-depth review of our study and the valuable suggestions you have provided. We are honored by your affirmation of the methodological, sample size, and analytical rigor of our study. At the same time, the issues you have pointed out are highly insightful and have provided us with crucial directions for further improving our research. We have carefully revised and supplemented the manuscript according to each of your suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:

Comment 1: The literature review should include global fire safety standards.

Response: We fully agree with your perspective. Placing our research within the framework of global standards can significantly enhance its international relevance and ability to engage in dialogue. Therefore, we have added relevant content to the corresponding parts of the manuscript.

At the end of Chapter 1, Literature Review (page 2), we have added a review of the core international standards, such as NFPA, ISO, and EN:

"Globally, authoritative standards and regulatory frameworks further standardize fire safety practices. For example, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has developed NFPA 101® (Life Safety Code®), which provides detailed requirements for the design of evacuation routes, exit capacity, and emergency training in high-rise buildings[19]; the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published ISO 23601:2022, focusing on the assessment of human behavior in fire emergencies and the optimization of evacuation strategies [20]; the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has established EN 13501-1, which classifies fire-resistant materials and structural performance to support building safety planning[21]."

In Chapter 2 (page 5), we have further established the connection and comparison between the core variables of our study (FEMS, BSPP) and international standards:

"It is worth noting that global regulatory frameworks such as NFPA 101® emphasize the integration of 'system training' and 'dynamic risk assessment' into daily management, which is consistent with the core dimensions of FEMS in our study. However, there are differences in the regional implementation of these standards, for example, EN 13501-1 has stricter requirements for exit width than the Chinese national standard, indicating that building safety performance planning needs to be adjusted according to local conditions."

Comment 2: The selection criteria for Delphi method experts need to be clarified.

Response: We greatly appreciate your pointing out this deficiency in the method description. To enhance the transparency and reproducibility of our study, we have provided a detailed explanation of the expert selection criteria in Section 3.1. Research Design and Variable Definition (page 6). Meanwhile, to maintain the fluency of the main text, the more detailed three-round Delphi screening process and item revision details have been moved to Appendix B for your review.

"Expert selection follows three core criteria: (1) Professional background: Fire emergency management experts must have no less than 10 years of front-line rescue or regulatory experience; academic experts in industrial design and building safety must have no less than 8 years of relevant research experience; (2) Qualification requirements: Fire experts must hold a senior title (senior engineer or above) or hold a key management position; academic experts must have led fire safety-related research projects or published no less than five papers in high-level journals; (3) Representativeness: The expert group must cover the perspectives of 'practice-regulation-academia'. At the same time, to avoid conflicts of interest, individuals with direct commercial connections to the research results (for example, employees of building material suppliers) were explicitly excluded. Initially, five fire emergency management experts and six experts in the field of industrial design and building safety were included."

Comment 3: Potential sample characteristic bias needs to be addressed in the limitations.

Response: The issue of potential response bias in the sample that you pointed out is very critical. We fully agree with this viewpoint and have clearly stated and discussed this limitation in Section 5.3. Research Limitations and Future Directions (page 18).

"It is worth noting that 58.9% of the respondents in this study are engaged in fire management-related work, which indicates a potential response bias in this sample structure. The professional training and work experience of this group have shaped their cognitive framework for fire emergencies. Compared with the general public without professional backgrounds, they have a more systematic understanding of evacuation norms, higher risk perception sensitivity, and more standardized behavioral tendencies. This makes the FEMS and BSPP evaluations more "standardized" rather than reflecting the true views of ordinary residents. Although this deviation may enhance the effectiveness of management systems and architectural designs in actual evacuation scenarios, it limits the promotion of research results to a wider public. After all, the responses of professional groups in fire emergencies differ from the actual psychological and behavioral characteristics of ordinary high-rise residents. Therefore, future research should balance the proportion of professional and non-professional samples to verify the applicability of the model in different populations."

Comment 4: Explanation regarding ethical approval.

Response: We sincerely thank you for paying attention to this important aspect of research ethics. Our study strictly adheres to relevant international and regional research ethics standards. The study used an anonymous questionnaire method, and the collected data does not involve any personal identification information. Moreover, the research content poses extremely low risk to participants. According to the ethical guidelines of Hanyang University in South Korea, the Korean National Human Research Ethics Policy, and Article 32 of the "Ethical Review Measures for Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Human Beings" in China, such anonymous and low-risk questionnaire survey studies are exempt from formal approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Therefore, our study did not seek IRB approval and no waiver certificate is required. For your convenience, we have attached the "Human Participants Research Checklist" that our study is based on. Please review it at your convenience.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your constructive and meticulous review. Your suggestions have greatly enhanced the rigor and completeness of our study. We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to ensure that all revisions are accurate. We kindly ask you to review the revised manuscript. If you need any further clarification, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Kaiyuan Guan

Corresponding Author:Duanduan Liu, Hanyang University, liuduanduan5@hanyang.ac.kr

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: “Analysis of the impact mechanism of fire evacuation efficiency in high rise buildings”

Manuscript number:

Fire in high rise building facilities represent a major life threat to the occupants of such infrastructures. The authors address the problem of evacuation from multiple perspectives, including environment behavior relationship theory, stress-cognition theory, and fire risk management theory. Overall, the employed methodology and statistical methods (EFA, CFA, & SEM) are sound and may represent a way forward to looking at human behavior during a fire emergency in such building facilities. Furthermore, the findings of the research project may be of interest not only to scholars in related fields, but also to decision-makers dealing with fire emergencies in the country. Some comments are given below:

Comments:

1. Overall, the manuscript is well presented and easy to read.
2. Regarding the sample size, it is not clear whether the sample (n=248) was for convenience or a random sample, i.e., the results may not be representative of the whole population. Kindly revise.
3. What is a high-rise building? How many floors do a high-rise building constitute? I believe that there are several definitions, and this should be clearly defined. (I know that the term has been used loosely in the field of fire safety.)
4. Occupants’ behavior during a fire evacuation between those living on lower floors with respect to those living on the middle and higher floors is lacking. Kindly discuss.
5. More importantly, and as usual, people with disabilities, the elderly, and kids, were not considered explicit in the study. A few lines could be added on this regard.
6. If items 4&5 were not included in the original design of the study, then a few lines on these important issues could be added in the section of future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the high praise you have given to our study's methodology, statistical analysis, and potential value. Your valuable suggestions are highly constructive, and we have carefully revised and improved the manuscript according to each of them. The specific modifications are as follows.

Comment 1: Sample size and sampling method.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in the sample description. We have added a detailed sampling process in Section 3.3. Data Collection (page 8) and clearly stated the limitations of this method in terms of representativeness.

"This study adopted a stratified convenience sampling method. First, eight high-rise residential communities with different building ages (5-20years) and population densities in Chaoyang District, Beijing, were selected. Questionnaires weredistributed through property management recommendations and on-site invitations, with a total of 481 questionnaires distributed. After excluding respondents who had not experienced a fire and invalid questionnaires (such as incomplete answers or consistent scores across all items), a final sample of 248 valid responses was obtained, with an effective response rate of 51.56%. All respondents had personal fire experience. It should be noted that this sampling method is limited by region and accessibility, so the sample may not fully represent the population of all high-rise residential residents in China. The generalizability of the results needs to be verified through subsequent multi-regional studies."

Comment 2: Definition of high-rise buildings.

Response:The issue of definition you pointed out is very critical. We have clearly defined "high-rise residential buildings" in Section 1. Introduction (page 2) and explained the standards and reasons for adopting this definition.

"In this study, high-rise residential buildings are defined according to the Chinese 'Building Fire Protection Design Code' (GB 50016-2014, 2018 edition)[22], which refers to residential buildings with ten or more floors (including ten floors) and a building height greater than 27 meters. This definition is consistent with the regulatory background of the study area (Beijing) and the fire safety management practices of the Chaoyang District Fire Rescue Brigade in Beijing. It should be noted that there are differences in the definition of high-rise buildings internationally. For example, NFPA 101®defines high-rise buildings as those over 75 feet (≈22.86 meters) in height. This study adopts the local standard to ensure the relevance of the research conclusions to the research objects. These standards provide cross-national references for management system integration and building design, but their consistency with regional evacuation behavior characteristics lacks empirical validation."

Comments 3, 4, and 5: Floor differences, special groups, and future research directions.

Response: We fully agree with your insights that floor differences and special groups are key variables in evacuation behavior research. Since these factors were not controlled as variables in the original research design, we have followed your suggestions and discussed them in detail in Section 5.2. Theoretical Contributions (page 18) under research limitations and future prospects.

"First, it should be noted that 58.9% of the respondents in this study are engaged in fire management-related work, and this sample structure has potential response bias... Therefore, future research should balance the proportion of professional and non-professional samples to verify the applicability of the model in different populations. Second, the sample in this study mainly consists of high-rise residential residents in Chaoyang District, Beijing, and individuals with fire experience, but the data collection did not differentiate by floor level. Existing research has shown that floor height significantly affects evacuation behavior... Future research should focus on special groups and floor differences, design targeted questionnaires, or use VR simulation technology to collect data from people with disabilities, the elderly, and children, exploring the moderating effects of age, physical condition, and floor height on the relationships between FEMS/BSPP/SPPP and ERB. Differentiated evacuation strategy models should be developed, such as setting up dedicated evacuation routes for residents on lower floors and emergency refuge floors for residents on higher floors, and incorporating special group assistance mechanisms into FEMS."

Once again, thank you for your insightful review. Your suggestions have significantly enhanced the rigor and depth of our study. We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to ensure that all modifications have been implemented. We kindly ask you to review the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Kaiyuan Guan

Corresponding Author: Duanduan Liu, Hanyang University, liuduanduan5@hanyang.ac.kr

Author Response File: Author Response.docx