Issues of Crowd Evacuation in Panic Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments:

This paper systematically reviews the selected issues in panic evacuation, and through literature analysis and experimental data, explores the influence of factors such as crowd density, speed, flow rate, and obstacles on evacuation efficiency. The research topic has significant practical significance and has application potential especially in public safety and architectural design. The paper has a clear structure and coherent logic, but some parts need to be further deepened and improved:

1. The latest research within the past five years (such as AI-based evacuation models, virtual reality experiments, etc.) should be supplemented to reflect the cutting-edge of the field.
2. The critical analysis of existing research is insufficient. The unique contribution of this review compared to other reviews needs to be clearly stated.
3. The discussion of "semi-panic state" in Section 3.5 needs to be further clarified to distinguish it from Helbing's "incomplete panic".
4. The reduction in evacuation time for "visually impaired people" under panic (-7.1%) in Table 2 needs a reasonable explanation to avoid logical contradictions.
5. A "Policy Recommendations" section should be added, proposing specific directions for legislative revisions in light of the current situation in Poland and international regulations.
6. Future research directions should be more specific.
7. How to define panic and how to quantify the direct relationship between panic and evacuation behavior?
8. Several assumptions were made in the conclusion, but they were based on subjective evaluations and the reasons for doing so need to be further explained.
9. What is a selected issues why select issues?
10. Different panic situations may arise in various scenarios (such as fire, earthquake, etc.), but this part has not been covered.
11. The situation of tension and panic is similar. Why not consider adding it?

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The latest research within the past five years (such as AI-based evacuation models, virtual reality experiments, etc.) should be supplemented to reflect the cutting-edge of the field.

Response 1: The article has been supplemented with suggested information.

Comments 2: The critical analysis of existing research is insufficient. The unique contribution of this review compared to other reviews needs to be clearly stated.

Response 2: The summary clearly states which elements of the article are new.

Comments 3: The discussion of "semi-panic state" in Section 3.5 needs to be further clarified to distinguish it from Helbing's "incomplete panic".

Response 3: Information has been added.

Comments 4: The reduction in evacuation time for "visually impaired people" under panic (-7.1%) in Table 2 needs a reasonable explanation to avoid logical contradictions.

Response 4: These observations were explained in accordance with the observations of the authors of the cited study.

Comments 5: A "Policy Recommendations" section should be added, proposing specific directions for legislative revisions in light of the current situation in Poland and international regulations.

Response 5: Additions have been made in this regard.

Comments 6: Future research directions should be more specific.

Response 6: Proposed future research directions are detailed.

Comments 7: How to define panic and how to quantify the direct relationship between panic and evacuation behavior?

Response 7: This is one of the questions that remains open despite the analysis conducted and is an additional future research direction identified in the summary.

Comments 8: Several assumptions were made in the conclusion, but they were based on subjective evaluations and the reasons for doing so need to be further explained.

Response 8: As explained in Table 3, for now this is an expert assessment, based on experience and intuition. This is also an additional direction for further research.

Comments 9: What is a selected issues why select issues?

Response 9: I received similar comments from other reviewers and therefore the title of the article was changed.

Comments 10: Different panic situations may arise in various scenarios (such as fire, earthquake, etc.), but this part has not been covered.

Response 10: It is true that some of the source materials I used also concern critical situations other than fire. However, they are beyond my research interests and therefore I did not devote more attention to them.

Comments 11: The situation of tension and panic is similar. Why not consider adding it?

Response 11: I don't know if I understood this comment correctly, but based on it I made a certain observation which is available in the literature and in a sense, it resembles the behaviour of people who rush towards something (motivation) and run away from something (fear / panic).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of issues related to crowd evacuation under panic conditions. It covers several key aspects such as the interplay between crowd density and velocity, the emergence of congestion, and the counterintuitive effects of obstacles. These topics are relevant especially given the increasing importance of emergency preparedness in dense urban environments.

1. The paper would benefit from a more explicit description of the methodology used to select, categorize, and interpret the studies cited. For instance: What were the criteria for inclusion or exclusion?
2. The contents moves fluidly between observations, theory, and recommendations without always grounding them in a defined problem frame. Is there any specific research question?
3. The authors should distinguish clearly between well-supported findings and hypotheses or intuitions that remain to be empirically validated.
4. If possible, please standardized and clarify the terms “semi-panic,” “incomplete panic,” and “panic parameter” particularly where these are interpreted differently across cited studies.
5. While the Polish regulatory context is an important case study, it would strengthen the manuscript to briefly acknowledge how similar issues are addressed in other jurisdictions, particularly where alternative safety protocols or empirical datasets exist.

The manuscript provides useful insights into panic evacuation dynamics and serves as a strong basis for future research. Improvements in methodological framing and clearer argumentative development are recommended.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper would benefit from a more explicit description of the methodology used to select, categorize, and interpret the studies cited. For instance: What were the criteria for inclusion or exclusion?

Response 1: The article contains a collection of studies by other authors, which were selected to be presented in this review and to be viewed from a different perspective, not necessarily critical. The review selected studies that allow for the formulation of one's own observations, or those whose results are not consistent with each other. This comparison allowed for the presentation of certain areas that may be an interesting field of research in the future.

Comments 2: The contents moves fluidly between observations, theory, and recommendations without always grounding them in a defined problem frame. Is there any specific research question?

Response 2: Indeed, the article does not contain a single research question. Paradoxically, the main research question remains unanswered, but the article indicates potential future research directions. The author's ambition is to ask the main research question: when is panic a cause and when is it an effect in the case of the formation of congestions at narrowings.

Comments 3: The authors should distinguish clearly between well-supported findings and hypotheses or intuitions that remain to be empirically validated.

Response 3: I tried to supplement the content, in the summary, what is a certain finding (novelty) in the article and which observations require further research (future research directions).

Comments 4: If possible, please standardized and clarify the terms “semi-panic,” “incomplete panic,” and “panic parameter” particularly where these are interpreted differently across cited studies.

Response 4: The explanation of these concepts is detailed in the body of the article.

Comments 5: While the Polish regulatory context is an important case study, it would strengthen the manuscript to briefly acknowledge how similar issues are addressed in other jurisdictions, particularly where alternative safety protocols or empirical datasets exist.

Response 5: Information on performance based design has been supplemented, which is mandatory in other countries in direct regulations, and in Poland only as a formula for replacement solutions (a deviation from the applicable regulations). Legislative recommendations for crowd evacuation design have also been added, which are important for each geographical location.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The Abstract lacks some specific research conclusions and constructive suggestions obtained through this study.

2.The format of the figures is not standardized,it should not include table and figure in Conclusion, and the References have many outdated papers.

3.What is the reason for selected these issues? and what is the logical relationship for theseSelected Issues?

4.The title focuses on the Panic Conditions, and the manuscript should give more discussions on the influence factors and reasons of the evacuation efficiency decreased by panic.

Author Response

Comments 1: The Abstract lacks some specific research conclusions and constructive suggestions obtained through this study.

Response 1: The abstract, due to editorial constraints, may contain a very limited number of words, and therefore also the content. I have slightly modified the abstract according to the suggestions of other reviewers. Nevertheless, I have improved the summary, where I have summarized the novelties contained in the article (my own conclusions and observations) and future research directions.

Comments 2: The format of the figures is not standardized,it should not include table and figure in Conclusion, and the References have many outdated papers.

Response 2: 

If necessary, I will use the service for authors to standardize the drawings.

 

There is indeed one table in the conclusions, but it is crucial for the unambiguous presentation of the results of the analysis conducted in terms of the impact of individual technical and construction solutions on the conditions of crowd evacuation. Leaving only a descriptive form (in my subjective assessment) would have a negative impact on the presentation of the research results.

 

In terms of the currency of the sources: the article contains a collection of studies by other authors, which were selected to be presented in this review and to be viewed from a different perspective, not necessarily critical. The review included studies that allow for the formulation of one's own observations, or those whose results are not consistent with each other. This comparison allowed for the presentation of certain areas that may be an interesting field of research in the future.

Comments 3: What is the reason for selected these issues? and what is the logical relationship for theseSelected Issues?

Response 3: I received similar comments from other reviewers and therefore the title of the article was changed.

Comments 4: The title focuses on the Panic Conditions, and the manuscript should give more discussions on the influence factors and reasons of the evacuation efficiency decreased by panic.

Response 4: I do not know if I understand this comment correctly, but the main content of the article is information related to the influence of the panic phenomenon (or a set of phenomena so generally referred to in the literature) on the effectiveness of evacuation through its (their) negative impact on velocity and flow rate through increased physical interactions and herding behavior.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is about the crowd evacuation under panic conditions. It affords the issues of congestions under emergency evacuation and different ways to model the phenomena.

Reviewer suggested to reject the manuscript due to the lack of most important parts of a research article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Reviewer suggested to reject the manuscript due to the lack of most important parts of a research article. 

Response 1: The opinion on the article is negative and different from the others. The article is quite specific and I realize that not everyone will understand it properly. My intention was not to write another dry research article that does not lead to anything, but to refer to many existing studies with a new perspective that is supposed to provoke discussion.

Comments 2: The reviewer suggests that the manuscript lacks the elements of a research article.

Response 2: This is not a typical research article, so it is obvious that it does not have any research article elements.

Comments 3: Reviewer understands that the main research question is about crowd evacuation and panic conditions. However in the introduction the aim is not well stated. 

Response 3: The main research problem was presented in the introduction.

Comments 4: Reviewer considers nothing as original or relevant to the field. Reviewer thinks that in the present form the paper is not adding anything to the subject area.

Response 4: Never-before-published conclusions and observations contained in the article:

• Suggestion that panic may be both a cause and an effect of physical phenomena occurring between people in a crowd.
• Graph showing the area, not lines, of the relationship between speed and crowd density.
• Determination of the impact of possible technical and construction solutions on reducing the risk of panic and/or congestion at narrowings.

Comments 5: If the research want to be a review, reviewer suggests to follow standard statement such as PRISMA methodology. 

Response 5: This methodology can be globally applied when one area is studied. In this article, six issues are analyzed, three of which are physical quantities and three are social observations. The application of the same methodology to different types of issues will not be used in this article.

Comments 6: The conclusions are not consistent with the overall manuscript, that lacks of material and methodology section as well as the experimental part. 

Response 6: Regarding the content of the explanation, I have presented above. I estimate that the conclusions in the manuscript are closely related to the content.

Comments 7: If the aim of the paper is to write a review on the topic it must contain more references and a  more detailed description of the structure used.

Response 7: When analyzing the available sources, I focused on quality, not quantity. The sources contain both elements of the canon (fundamentals) as well as the latest research. There are many articles where the sources are duplicated. My intention was to avoid repetitions and research that is certainly important but does not bring new observations. As suggested by another reviewer, I supplemented the sources with publications related to the use of AI and referring to the comparison of escape panic to acquisition panic.

Comments 8: Generally, tables and figures need a better description and references about data used.

Response 8: Due to the lack of precise allegations, it is difficult for me to comment on which descriptions of tables and figures require improvement, especially since I did not receive any other comments in this regard.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments:

This paper systematically reviews the key issues in panic evacuation, and through literature analysis and experimental data, explores the influence of factors such as crowd density, speed, flow rate, and obstacles on evacuation efficiency. The research topic has significant practical significance and has application potential especially in public safety and architectural design. The paper has a clear structure and coherent logic, although further improvements have been made, they need to be improved.

1. The proposed future research directions are valuable. However, consider further refining them to be more specific and actionable. For example, identifying specific types of crowds, events, or building types that would benefit from targeted research could enhance the clarity and impact of these recommendations.
2. The review should continue to debate and research how panic is defined and its impact quantified, and suggest potential directions for progress.
3. It should also update the latest research of the past five years, such as virtual reality experiments, to complete the frontier of the field.
4. Over-reliance on secondary data may weaken the universality of the conclusions.
5. Several of the assumptions made in the conclusion are expert assessments based on experience and intuition, which need to be further proved scientifically.
6. Different panic situations may occur in various scenarios (such as fire, earthquake, etc.), which are not covered in this part. Although it is beyond the interest of research, it should be supplemented appropriately.
7. It is necessary to further explore how to define panic and quantify the direct relationship between panic and evacuation behavior.

Author Response

Comments 1: The proposed future research directions are valuable. However, consider further refining them to be more specific and actionable. For example, identifying specific types of crowds, events, or building types that would benefit from targeted research could enhance the clarity and impact of these recommendations.

Response 1: Previously submitted suggestions already contained detailed directions for research, and I tried to include them in the previous version of the article. In the current version I have made some additions (page 15), but they are not significant. If more detailed guidelines appear from the reviewer, I will gladly use them.

Comments 2: The review should continue to debate and research how panic is defined and its impact quantified, and suggest potential directions for progress.

Response 2: I have added some information about the definition of panic and possible directions for research on page 3. I am currently unable to add new, verified information about the definition of panic, because it is not known to me. However, I think I have added an important element about the previously unstudied course of the "intensity" of panic (herding behavior) over time.

Comments 3: It should also update the latest research of the past five years, such as virtual reality experiments, to complete the frontier of the field.

Response 3: I have included information on the latest research on VR in evacuation (in general) on page 2 of the article. If there is a suggestion for more detailed information, please point it out, but at this stage AI and VW applications in evacuation design are not the subject of my review.

Comments 4: Over-reliance on secondary data may weaken the universality of the conclusions.

Response 4: I'm not sure if I understand this comment correctly. I would appreciate clarification.

Comments 5: Several of the assumptions made in the conclusion are expert assessments based on experience and intuition, which need to be further proved scientifically.

Response 5: Yes, that's true, but the current conclusions from the article also constitute a research direction in this direction. It is too early (I do not have the research yet) to precisely indicate the relationship between the solutions used and their impact on the effectiveness of the evacuation. I have included an explanation on page 15.

Comments 6: Different panic situations may occur in various scenarios (such as fire, earthquake, etc.), which are not covered in this part. Although it is beyond the interest of research, it should be supplemented appropriately.

Response 6: I don't know if I understood the reviewer's intention correctly, but my intention in the article was to look for common features of panic behavior in different situations, not differences - so I may not have fulfilled the reviewer's expectations. I believe that features other than the type of event have an impact on the occurrence of panic. I also used an interesting publication in a similar scope and supplemented the text on page 3.

Comments 7: It is necessary to further explore how to define panic and quantify the direct relationship between panic and evacuation behavior.

Response 7: I hope I have included some content regarding this comment in previous additions, but I am not sure if I understand correctly. I would be grateful for any clarification.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is recommended to use styles instead of colors to distinguish in Fig.4, Fig.9 and Fig.10.  
2. The X-axis needs to add a name in Fig.6.
3. Analysis and discussion of Table 3 should be placed in Chapter 3, the Conclusion should display the specific research results obtained from this study.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is recommended to use styles instead of colors to distinguish in Fig.4, Fig.9 and Fig.10.  

Response 1: Done

Comments 2: The X-axis needs to add a name in Fig.6.

Response 2: Done

Comments 3: Analysis and discussion of Table 3 should be placed in Chapter 3, the Conclusion should display the specific research results obtained from this study.

Response 3: Done

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript is accepted in the present form.

Response 1: Thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments:

This article provides a comprehensive review and discussion of crowd behavior and patterns in panic evacuation, providing valuable insights for understanding and analyzing such events. The article is clearly structured, logically rigorous, and cites a large number of literature, reflecting the author's in-depth understanding of the field.although further improvements have been made, they need to be improved.

1. It is mainly based on a literature review, and the authors are advised to supplement some of their own research results, such as using simulations or experiments to test the hypotheses presented in the paper.
2. The discussion section could go further, for example with a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between individual and group behavior in panic evacuations.
3. It is suggested that the author make careful revisions in accordance with the previous suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. The changes and additions introduced are not major, but I hope they are sufficient - considering the scope of changes introduced since the beginning of the entire review process. I have the impression that I have approached the maximum of my possibilities of proper perception in relation to the reviewer's expectations.

Comments 1: It is mainly based on a literature review, and the authors are advised to supplement some of their own research results, such as using simulations or experiments to test the hypotheses presented in the paper.

Answer 1: Yes, it is true, the article is a review and therefore did not contain my own research. Not wanting to lose the review character of the article and have a base of my own research for my other (research) articles, I introduced addition in this area - related, and also taking into account comment no. 2.

Comments 2: The discussion section could go further, for example with a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between individual and group behavior in panic evacuations.

Answer 2: I have made addition to the section no. 3.7, concerning the differences between individual and herd behavior. This is, in a sense, a short summary of the descriptions contained earlier in the article, and therefore the addition is synthetic. Additionally, I supported the argument with a fragment of my own research, in accordance with suggestion no. 1.

Comments 3: It is suggested that the author make careful revisions in accordance with the previous suggestions.

Answer 3: I approached each comment, each reviewer, in previous rounds of reviews with great commitment. If my previous additions do not meet the reviewer's expectations, I am afraid that they are due rather to a lack of expected abilities than to oversights or careless approach.