Occupants’ Perspectives of the Use of Smartphones during Fire Evacuation from High-Rise Residential Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Though written and clear, the approach chosen appears to be scientifically weak: the interviewees are not experts nor have previous experiences in fire emergency situations. Therefore, if the aim of the paper is to provide scientific foundations for the research, it fails. Research gaps must be stated more clearly. If the authors intend to use customers’ opinion to define the requirements of a future framework, they should use specific quality techniques (QFD for example) and the number of interviewees must be larger. 

The aim of the paper is to understand occupants’ views in using smartphones to assist during fire evacuation: But is it really necessary and useful – from a theoretical point of view - to know their opinions on that subject? It is not clear, in other words how the development of the proposed framework is connected with the results of the presented interviews, nor how the impact of this paper is evident at the academic level.

Specific comments

A definition for the high-rise buildings in both Egypt and UK needs to be provided (what qualifies a building to be high rise in both countries?). The different responses obtained from Egypt and UK need to be clarified because of different nature of the buildings and fire systems in both countries.

There are major issues with the results and discussion of this paper. Each question or point needs to be clearly highlighted, the responses to each question need to be visually represented (graphs or charts) and commentary needs to be provided for each graph with the outcomes of each graph. The comments need to show a correlation or conclusion for each assertion. Many conclusions are basic common sense. Concluding remarks from the interviews need to be itemized and made clear. The research gap and the value of the paper need to be highlighted more. The topic and abstract are interesting, but the weak conclusion does not lead to valuable outcomes.

Page 2:

• Citation numbering needs to be reviewed
• Please provide explanation for acronym BIM (i.e. Building Information Modeling)
• Add parenthesis for reference #3 and #8

Page 3:

• Please provide explanation for acronym IFC
• Add parenthesis for reference #12 and #14

Page 4:

• Second paragraph is common sense and redundant and can be removed
• A definition for the high-rise buildings in both Egypt and UK needs to be given (what qualifies a building to be high rise in both countries?)
• Add parenthesis for reference #16
• The 11 questions need to be added to the research
• Issues with the results and discussion of this paper:

1. Each question or point need to be clearly highlighted
2. The responses to each question need to be visually represented (graphs or charts)
3. A comment needs to be written for each graph with the outcomes of each graph
4. The comments need to show a correlation or conclusion for each point using any applicable statistical method.

Page 11:

• Many conclusions are basic common sense. Concluding remarks from the interviews need to be itemized and made clear. The different responses obtained from Egypt and UK need to be differentiated due to the different nature of the buildings and fire systems in both countries.
• The research gap and the value of the paper need to be highlighted more. The title and abstract is interesting, but the weak conclusion does not lead to valuable outcomes.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Though written and clear, the approach chosen appears to be scientifically weak: the interviewees are not experts nor have previous experiences in fire emergency situations. Therefore, if the aim of the paper is to provide scientific foundations for the research, it fails. Research gaps must be stated more clearly. If the authors intend to use customers’ opinion to define the requirements of a future framework, they should use specific quality techniques (QFD for example) and the number of interviewees must be larger. 

Answer: We have justified the number of interviewees conducted and the challenges the authors faced to conduct interviews with high rise occupants. Research gap has been identified

The aim of the paper is to understand occupants’ views in using smartphones to assist during fire evacuation: But is it really necessary and useful – from a theoretical point of view - to know their opinions on that subject? It is not clear, in other words how the development of the proposed framework is connected with the results of the presented interviews, nor how the impact of this paper is evident at the academic level.

Answer: The aim of the paper has been modified and explained in details

 Specific comments

A definition for the high-rise buildings in both Egypt and UK needs to be provided (what qualifies a building to be high rise in both countries?). The different responses obtained from Egypt and UK need to be clarified because of different nature of the buildings and fire systems in both countries.

Answer: A definition of high-rise building in the UK and Egypt has been provided with clear reference added.

There are major issues with the results and discussion of this paper. Each question or point needs to be clearly highlighted, the responses to each question need to be visually represented (graphs or charts) and commentary needs to be provided for each graph with the outcomes of each graph. The comments need to show a correlation or conclusion for each assertion. Many conclusions are basic common sense. Concluding remarks from the interviews need to be itemized and made clear. The research gap and the value of the paper need to be highlighted more. The topic and abstract are interesting, but the weak conclusion does not lead to valuable outcomes.

Answer: A robust conclusion has been added with clear connection and link to the research conducted. More analysis has been done to interviews findings presented in graphs and charts. Conclusions has addressed research gaps and added possible recommendations.

 Page 2:

• Citation numbering needs to be reviewed

Answer: completed, all citation have been reviewed

• Please provide explanation for acronym BIM (i.e. Building Information Modeling)

Answer: deleted all sections related to BIM

• Add parenthesis for reference #3 and #8

Answer: citations has been corrected

Page 3:

• Please provide explanation for acronym IFC

Answer: IFC has been removed along with BIM as it was not relevant.

• Add parenthesis for reference #12 and #14

Answer: citations has been corrected

 Page 4:

• Second paragraph is common sense and redundant and can be removed

Answer: We believed the second paragraph added more to the literature review

• A definition for the high-rise buildings in both Egypt and UK needs to be given (what qualifies a building to be high rise in both countries?)

Answer: added and referenced

• Add parenthesis for reference #16

Answer: added

• The 11 questions need to be added to the research

Answer: added

• Issues with the results and discussion of this paper:

1. Each question or point need to be clearly highlighted

Answer: This has now been clearly highlighted

1. The responses to each question need to be visually represented (graphs or charts)

Answer: charts and graphs have been added.

1. A comment needs to be written for each graph with the outcomes of each graph .

Answer: Further explanation has been provided to each table and graph

1. The comments need to show a correlation or conclusion for each point using any applicable statistical method.

Answer: Conclusions has been modified

 Page 11:

• Many conclusions are basic common sense. Concluding remarks from the interviews need to be itemized and made clear. The different responses obtained from Egypt and UK need to be differentiated due to the different nature of the buildings and fire systems in both countries.

Answer: This has now been corrected.

• The research gap and the value of the paper need to be highlighted more. The title and abstract is interesting, but the weak conclusion does not lead to valuable outcomes.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that the interview of the applicability of smartphones during evacuation conducted by the author is a very necessary study. But I think the following corrections and reorganization of the paper are necessary.

1. The composition of the introduction does not clearly explain the topic and necessity of the paper.
In particular, BIM seems irrelevant to the content of the paper.

2. It is necessary to think about how to convey information to the reader. 
 - The research method should include the outline of the questionnaire and the reason for choosing each question.
 - The results of the study can be expressed more clearly through tables and figures.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

I think that the interview of the applicability of smartphones during evacuation conducted by the author is a very necessary study. But I think the following corrections and reorganization of the paper are necessary.

1. The composition of the introduction does not clearly explain the topic and necessity of the paper.
   In particular, BIM seems irrelevant to the content of the paper.

Answer: BIM has been removed from the research paper

2. It is necessary to think about how to convey information to the reader. 
   The research method should include the outline of the questionnaire and the reason for choosing each question.
   The results of the study can be expressed more clearly through tables and figures.

Answer: The questionnaire outline has been added to the appendix of the paper

Reviewer 3 Report

Proposed paper is a beginning for a very interesting and needed future system. The evacuation can be or even should be assisted by smartphones.

Remarks to the proposed paper:

Abstract:

1. “These perceptions are important for the appropriate application of technology for fire egress.” – please reconsider formulation “fire egress”. I think that evacuation or people egress/escape is more appropriate.
2. “The research clearly shows the importance of smartphones during evacuation and the role it can play in assisting occupants find the fastest and safest route during evacuation.” – please check grammar.

Introduction

3. “The vertical shaft in high-rise buildings, such as a stairwell or ele-vator shaft, allows the spread of smoke” – please take into account that over pressure safety systems in high rise buildings are mandatory in most countries and they prevent smoke spreading.
4. While citation – please reconsider adding some basic information about author and subject in the text – no only a number with no further explanation. There are also some brackets missing.
5. “Moreover, occupants tend to assume that the exit sign with the pictogram of a running man is all that’s important for a successful evacuation. This can be the case for simple structures, but for high-rise residential buildings or complex structures, the exit signs will not be enough, as they often do not give enough direction to the safest and shortest path.” This statement is not proven. There is a need for more discussion if this part is going to stay in the article. I wouldn’t agree with this part.
6. Even if BIM is widely recognizable – please reconsider adding some basic information about it.
7. “BIM models of high-rise residential buildings in conjunction with game engines can solve the problem of conducting evacuation tests and studying human behavior in emergencies.” – Please add some explanation why you are writing about game engines, while there are specialized evacuation simulation software available.
8. Is ABM model yours ? Is it validated? Please add some more information about it.

Rest of the article:

9. The number of interviewed people is low – especially in UK. Is this representative study?
10. Why is the research not concluded with any graphical way? Or any numbers which could summarize in quantitative way research findings?
11. I need to comment, that locating friends and family in the building - and trying to find them and communicating with them – can be dangerous and time consuming. This date would be needed for rescuers, thou.
12. There is no information about the interviewed people (age, gender). There is no information about the buildings there are living in (height of the building, the level they occupy) – are those information not relevant? And it is not clear if those people had ever experienced fire situation – or fire evacuation (please reconsider not using “fire evacuation”).
13. Presented answers are sometimes very interesting (for me), but I can’t find any evaluation from the authors. The statement in the conclusion that “A majority of the interviews preferred text instructions, although a significant proportion of interviewees acknowledged the value of graphical instructions or a combination of graphical and textual.” is not supported on any data. Have the researchers compare different user interfaces?
14. And finally – there is no mention about BIM during interview. What is the connection between BIM, game engines and all described models in introduction and the interviews results?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Proposed paper is a beginning for a very interesting and needed future system. The evacuation can be or even should be assisted by smartphones.

 Remarks to the proposed paper:

Abstract:

1. “These perceptions are important for the appropriate application of technology for fire egress.” – please reconsider formulation “fire egress”. I think that evacuation or people egress/escape is more appropriate.

Answer: That has been corrected

2. “The research clearly shows the importance of smartphones during evacuation and the role it can play in assisting occupants find the fastest and safest route during evacuation.” – please check grammar.

Answer: Answer: grammar checked

Introduction

3. “The vertical shaft in high-rise buildings, such as a stairwell or ele-vator shaft, allows the spread of smoke” – please take into account that over pressure safety systems in high rise buildings are mandatory in most countries and they prevent smoke spreading.

Answer: corrected

4. While citation – please reconsider adding some basic information about author and subject in the text – no only a number with no further explanation. There are also some brackets missing.

Answer: Citation has been corrected and added

5. “Moreover, occupants tend to assume that the exit sign with the pictogram of a running man is all that’s important for a successful evacuation. This can be the case for simple structures, but for high-rise residential buildings or complex structures, the exit signs will not be enough, as they often do not give enough direction to the safest and shortest path.” This statement is not proven. There is a need for more discussion if this part is going to stay in the article. I wouldn’t agree with this part.

Answer: This part has been deleted

6. Even if BIM is widely recognizable – please reconsider adding some basic information about it.

Answer: BIM has been removed from the journal

7. “BIM models of high-rise residential buildings in conjunction with game engines can solve the problem of conducting evacuation tests and studying human behavior in emergencies.” – Please add some explanation why you are writing about game engines, while there are specialized evacuation simulation software available.

Answer: Evacuation games engines and BIM have been deleted from the paper and more related literature review has been added.

8. Is ABM model yours ? Is it validated? Please add some more information about it.

Answer: ABM has been removed form the article.

Rest of the article:

9. The number of interviewed people is low – especially in UK. Is this representative study?

10. Why is the research not concluded with any graphical way? Or any numbers which could summarize in quantitative way research findings?

Answer: The research has some limitations, however this has now been added and justified in the research methodology and conclusion.

11. I need to comment, that locating friends and family in the building - and trying to find them and communicating with them – can be dangerous and time consuming. This date would be needed for rescuers, thou.

12. There is no information about the interviewed people (age, gender). There is no information about the buildings there are living in (height of the building, the level they occupy) – are those information not relevant? And it is not clear if those people had ever experienced fire situation – or fire evacuation (please reconsider not using “fire evacuation”).

Answer: The authors believed that the age and gender are not relevant to the information related to fire. It is now difficult to go back and ask interviewees their age. A clear and detailed explanation has been added.

13. Presented answers are sometimes very interesting (for me), but I can’t find any evaluation from the authors. The statement in the conclusion that “A majority of the interviews preferred text instructions, although a significant proportion of interviewees acknowledged the value of graphical instructions or a combination of graphical and textual.” is not supported on any data. Have the researchers compare different user interfaces?

Answer: Yes that has been compared and all responses have now been presented.

14. And finally – there is no mention about BIM during interview. What is the connection between BIM, game engines and all described models in introduction and the interviews results?

Answer: BIM has been removed completed from the research

Reviewer 4 Report

The use of smartphones fulfils significant gap in knowledge regarding fire evacuation, but on the other side it is much more worrying as compares to the traditional mode of fire evacuation. In this context the future work directions are far insufficiently indicated.

Particular remarks:

• The authors fail to describe the scientific goal of the study.
• The current state of knowledge is insufficiently presented.
• Neither the interview method, nor its results (both qualitative and quantitative) are sufficiently described.
• Error analysis is missing.
• Conclusions are trivial in the current version.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The use of smartphones fulfils significant gap in knowledge regarding fire evacuation, but on the other side it is much more worrying as compares to the traditional mode of fire evacuation. In this context the future work directions are far insufficiently indicated.

Particular remarks:

• The authors fail to describe the scientific goal of the study.

Answer: This has now been corrected

• The current state of knowledge is insufficiently presented.

Answer: Further literature review has been added to present current state of knowledge and research gap.

• Neither the interview method, nor its results (both qualitative and quantitative) are sufficiently described.
• Error analysis is missing.
• Conclusions are trivial in the current version.

Answer: Conclusions have been improved and re-written.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the article is still not clearly explicated. There is only a short sentence and citation that refers to ‘perceptions of risk’ of evacuees in order to develop the smartphone driven approach, but more explicit assertion of the aim and also of the scope of the research is needed. The literature is too brief and does not adequately identify the gaps – more recent significant fires such as the Grenfell Fire in London should be included. More statistical and methodological insights would make the paper more robust and support scientific soundness: the few graphs provided are very simplistic and could easily be substituted by short sentences, such as ‘all interviewees affirm that they would carry their smartphones during evacuation’. From the methodological point-of-view when developing a questionnaire, it is fundamental to explain how the questions were selected. Also, statistical analysis of the results should be provided, coupled with an error analysis. Some statements are presumptuous, such as “….it can be argued that the 23 interviewers were an adequate representation of the general population of high-rise building occupants”. The authors should clarify the basis of this statement. Despite some improvement, the revision has not addressed the comments that impact more significantly on the methodology. As a general comment, the subject of the paper is promising but many methodological steps are missing or have not been explained; these areas must be included to improve the overall merits of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Revision comments were appropriately reflected.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have no further comments

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments.