A Simulation Analysis of the Coverage and Demand Suitability of the Firefighting Capacity in Complex Commercial Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please see the attached file
Author Response
Thank you very much to the reviewer for carefully reading my manuscript. I deeply apologize for the issues present in the manuscript. Your valuable feedback is crucial for the revision of our paper. Here are the specific modifications we made to the paper.
Comments 1: Introduction: Why there are some non-english characters?
Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. I am very sorry for the non English characters that appeared in the introduction. We have changed the English characters in the introduction.
Comments 2: Suggest that at the end of the introduction, a list of this research contributions should be provided.
Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have proofread all the references in the introduction. To avoid textual redundancy and due to the limited length of the manuscript, a detailed list of research contributions was not included after the introduction.
Comments 3: Suggest to add a section for literature review. What are current research gaps?
Response 3: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have addressed the current research gaps. The specific content can be found in lines 63 to 112 of the manuscript. It has been marked with yellow and blue highlights.
Comments 4: The authors emphasize ‘fairness’ and ‘efficiency’ but have not addressed these aspects from the mathematical perspective. Please see “Model and Analysis of Delivery Route in the Healthcare Cold Chain Network using Minimax Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Window (VRPTW)” and “How fairness perceptions, embeddedness, and knowledge sharing drive green innovation in sustainable supply chains: An equity theory and network perspective to achieve sustainable development goals”
Response 4: Agree. Thank you for your suggestions and provided references. We have conducted a detailed analysis of fairness and efficiency. The specific content can be found in lines 217 to 231 and 267 to 273 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in yellow.
Comments 5: Recent studies related to the fire planning and evacuation simulation should be consulted (see “Deng, K., Zhang, Q., Zhang, H., Xiao, P., & Chen, J. (2022). Optimal emergency evacuation route planning model based on fire prediction data. Mathematics, 10(17), 3146.”, “Integrated IEWTOPSIS and fire dynamics simulation for agent-based evacuation modeling in industrial safety”.
Response 5: Agree. Thank you for providing the reference. We have applied the content from the references in the manuscript. The specific content can be found in lines 188 to 191 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in yellow.
Comments 6: Figure 1's font size is quite small and should be adjusted. This is also the case with many figures. Please check for the entire manuscript.
Response 6: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have adjusted the font size in the images in the manuscript. The specific content can be found in Figures 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the manuscript. And it has been highlighted in blue.
Comments 7: A notation list should be clearly added to list all variables and parameters used.
Response 7: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a new symbol list in the manuscript, listing the variables and parameters used. The specific content can be found in lines 129 to 154 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in yellow
Comments 8: Suggest to add tables for the results obtaiend from the mathematical model as well.
Response 8: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the results obtained from the mathematical model to the table. The table in the text shows it. The specific content can be found in lines 524 and 470 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in yellow.
Comments 9: Suggest to add a section for managerial insights and practical implications.
Response 9: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added management insights and practical impact. The specific content can be found in lines 511 to 522 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in yellow.
Comments 10: Future research directions should be added in the conclusion section.
Response 10: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added future research directions in the conclusion section. The specific content can be found in lines 553-555 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in yellow.
Comments 11: Currently, too few citations in the reference list to emphasize the state of the art review. In addition, many cited papers are quite old and recent studies within 5 years should be added and consulted.
Response 11: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have updated it to resemble a literature list. They are references 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, respectively.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Feedback
While this manuscript provides a clear background on challenges of firefighting in complex commercial areas, it lacks depth in comparing its progressive graded coverage model with alternative models. Please include a more detailed review of relevant models to strengthen your theoretical foundation. e.g. MCLP-P.
The methodology, esp. the genetic algorithm's parameter settings and initial assumptions, needs more elaboration. Readers unfamiliar with this domain may need to know why certain design choices were made.
Figures 8 and 9 require clearer labeling and consistent scaling to enhance accessibility and comprehension.
For the results, please incorporating statistical measures (e.g., confidence intervals, significance tests) to provide stronger support for the claims made.
Foe the case study, please provide more details on the practical applicability of the findings (e.g., policy recommendations).
Specific Comments
Lines 37-47:: Clarify limitations of existing coverage models to justify need for your proposed model. Introduction lacks specific examples to support claims of inadequacy in current approaches.
Section 2.3: Description of progressive coverage model is overly technical. Adding a simplified conceptual diagram would help readers visualize coverage radii and matching degrees more effectively.
Section 4.3: Explain observed trends in effective coverage rate and overall coverage rate with more detail. What factors contribute to diminishing returns after adding 14 stations?
Lines 417-429: Highlight trade-offs between fairness and efficiency in fire service coverage, which is central to manuscript's objectives but not thoroughly addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate revisions of English language expression are required to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. There are awkward phrasing e.g, "compatibility between facility points and demand points' levels" and verbose descriptions in abstract. Please simplify technical jargon and vary with shorter sentences to improve readability.
Author Response
Thank you very much to the reviewer for carefully reading my manuscript. I deeply apologize for the issues present in the manuscript. Your valuable feedback is crucial for the revision of our paper. Here are the specific modifications we made to the paper.
Comments 1: While this manuscript provides a clear background on challenges of firefighting in complex commercial areas, it lacks depth in comparing its progressive graded coverage model with alternative models. Please include a more detailed review of relevant models to strengthen your theoretical foundation. e.g. MCLP-P.
Response 1: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added detailed information about the relevant models in the manuscript. The specific content can be found in lines 63 to 89 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in blue.
Comments 2: The methodology, esp. the genetic algorithm's parameter settings and initial assumptions, needs more elaboration. Readers unfamiliar with this domain may need to know why certain design choices were made.
Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added parameter settings and initial assumption information for the genetic algorithm. The specific content can be found in lines 363 to 372 and Figure 9 of the manuscript. We have highlighted it in blue.
Comments 3: Figures 8 and 9 require clearer labeling and consistent scaling to enhance accessibility and comprehension.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have clearly marked and consistently scaled the images in the manuscript. The original Figures 8 and 9 have been changed to Figures 10 and 11. The specific content can be found in lines 438 and 525 of the manuscript.
Comments 4: For the results, please incorporating statistical measures (e.g., confidence intervals, significance tests) to provide stronger support for the claims made.
Response 4: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have made modifications to the conclusion section and provided support for the presented claims. The specific content can be found in lines 533 to 553 of the manuscript. It has been marked with blue highlight.
Comments 5: Foe the case study, please provide more details on the practical applicability of the findings (e.g., policy recommendations).
Response 5: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have provided policy recommendations regarding the investigation results. The specific content can be found in lines 511 to 522 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in yellow.
Comments 6: Lines 37-47:: Clarify limitations of existing coverage models to justify need for your proposed model. Introduction lacks specific examples to support claims of inadequacy in current approaches.
Response 6: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented the limitations of existing models and increased the gap in current research status. The specific content can be found in lines 63 to 112 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in blue and yellow.
Comments 7: Section 2.3: Description of progressive coverage model is overly technical. Adding a simplified conceptual diagram would help readers visualize coverage radii and matching degrees more effectively.
Response 7: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a concept map of the graded progressive coverage model. This is shown in Figure 1 of the manuscript. The specific content can be found on line 125 of the manuscript. It has been marked with green highlight.
Comments 8: Section 4.3: Explain observed trends in effective coverage rate and overall coverage rate with more detail. What factors contribute to diminishing returns after adding 14 stations?
Response 8: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have provided a detailed explanation of the factors that lead to the diminishing returns at point 14 in the manuscript from lines 487 to 495. It has been marked with blue highlight.
Comments 9: Lines 417-429: Highlight trade-offs between fairness and efficiency in fire service coverage, which is central to manuscript's objectives but not thoroughly addressed.
Response 9: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We have conducted a detailed analysis of fairness and efficiency. The specific content can be found in lines 217 to 231 and 267 to 273 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in yellow.
Comments 10: Moderate revisions of English language expression are required to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. There are awkward phrasing e.g, "compatibility between facility points and demand points' levels" and verbose descriptions in abstract. Please simplify technical jargon and vary with shorter sentences to improve readability.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made modifications to the English expression. The revised content is marked in red font in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have properly clarified my comments and concerns in the previous report. There are a few minor issues for the number of citations shown in the manuscript and what actually present. Please make sure to check in this revision.
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors have properly clarified my comments and concerns in the previous report. There are a few minor issues for the number of citations shown in the manuscript and what actually present. Please make sure to check in this revision.
Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. We apologize for the discrepancy between the citation numbers in the references and the actual content. We have made revisions, specifically in lines 111, 191, 218, and 616-622 of the manuscript. It has been highlighted in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFigures: While Figures 10 & 11 are improved, please add trendlines or labels in Figure 11(a) to highlight inflection points to further enhance comprehension.
Lines 505-508: To consider elaborating on how this model could integrate with existing fire safety regulations, such as localized alarm systems.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language in the manuscript is mostly clear, but some technical sections could benefit from minor edits to simplify phrasing e.g., Lines 217–231 discussing fairness-efficiency trade-offs.
Author Response
Thank you very much to the reviewer for carefully reading my manuscript. I deeply apologize for the issues present in the manuscript. Your valuable feedback is crucial for the revision of our paper. Here are the specific modifications we made to the paper.
Comments 1: While Figures 10 & 11 are improved, please add trendlines or labels in Figure 11(a) to highlight inflection points to further enhance comprehension.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. To highlight the inflection point, we have highlighted it in green at inflection points A and B in Figure 11 (a).
Comments 2: To consider elaborating on how this model could integrate with existing fire safety regulations, such as localized alarm systems.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added relevant content on fire alarms. The specific content is marked in red font on lines 515-521 of the manuscript.
Comments 3: The English language in the manuscript is mostly clear, but some technical sections could benefit from minor edits to simplify phrasing e.g., Lines 217–231 discussing fairness-efficiency trade-offs.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made revisions to the manuscript. The specific modifications are marked in red font on lines 218-220, 224-226, and 228 of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
