Geovisualization and Geographical Analysis for Fire Prevention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study describes and compares several methods for mapping the occurrence of building fires in Swedish cities. While this is a useful exercise, it is fairly routine and does not present a great leap forward in knowledge.
I thought one advantage of the paper was that workshops were held with practitioners to evaluate the techniques, but there was no formal reporting of the workshops (e.g. what they were, who was present, and what the feedback was). So in the end, there is no rigorous comparison of the techniques, just a discussion of the authors’ opinions about their benefits.
Similarly, the application of statistical clustering tests was interesting, but this was not presented as a routine part of the techniques to be presented to the user (e.g. not mentioned in Figure 3).
I wonder if the paper could be more focussed on producing an operational tool, including more on the workshop evaluation and how the tests would be incorporated.
Apart from these criticisms I had no problem with the paper. It was well written, had no problems with interpreting the results, and used the literature well.
I think section 3.3. should be titled “Choropleth Maps”.
In fact the term coropleth is not explained.
Author Response
Author' reply
Dear Reviewer 1, Thanks for great comments. See my responses below (in red).
This study describes and compares several methods for mapping the occurrence of building fires in Swedish cities. While this is a useful exercise, it is fairly routine and does not present a great leap forward in knowledge.
Point 1: I thought one advantage of the paper was that workshops were held with practitioners to evaluate the techniques, but there was no formal reporting of the workshops (e.g. what they were, who was present, and what the feedback was). So in the end, there is no rigorous comparison of the techniques, just a discussion of the authors’ opinions about their benefits.
Response 1: More information about the workshop participants has been added to section 2.2.4 (see more in response 3):
“Participants in the workshops were analysts, statisticians, fire engineers, fire inspectors, chief fire officers, commanders, fire safety officers, and area managers.”
Point 2: Similarly, the application of statistical clustering tests was interesting, but this was not presented as a routine part of the techniques to be presented to the user (e.g. not mentioned in Figure 3).
Response 2: Thanks for the comment, however the clustering test is mentioned in Figure 3 in stage 2 (Spatial cluster test – Average nearest neighbor – misspelled though, I’ve corrected that)
Point 3: I wonder if the paper could be more focussed on producing an operational tool, including more on the workshop evaluation and how the tests would be incorporated.
Response 3:
- The paper is not aimed at developing an operational tool, but rather to problematize how different visualization techniques can be used for interpretation and analysis of fires over a surface at different levels and scales. The idea is good and I see the opportunity in a future project to develop a tool that can guide users to the right visualization technology.
- I’ve developed the text about process of the workshops and how the evaluations of the geovisualization techniques were used. See section 2.2.4:
“The process during the workshops was that the various map visualizations were presented to the personnel from the emergency services. All participants were then given the opportunity to comment on and problematize both maps and the spatial distribution of fires within their areas of operation (e.g. districts within Malmö, Stockholm and Gothenburg). All comments were compiled into a document that was further used as input to the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses with the various geovisualization techniques and their specific applicability in the emergency service's fire prevention work.”
Apart from these criticisms I had no problem with the paper. It was well written, had no problems with interpreting the results, and used the literature well.
Point 4: I think section 3.3. should be titled “Choropleth Maps”.
Response 4: I’ve changed title in section 3.3. to “Choropleth Maps”
Point 5: In fact the term choropleth is not explained.
Response 5: I have added a short explanation in the introduction.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript describes different ways to summarise and display statistics related to residential fires, and analyses their respective characteristics for the purpose of interpretation by emergency services. The pros and cons of these displays was assessed in a qualitative manner during workshops with staff from emergency services. The study focuses on fire incidents in two adjacent municipalities in Sweden. This manuscript is well written, with a satisfactory use of English language. My review comments regarding this paper are provided below.
One aspect of the maps presented in this study is that none of them includes an associated layer of uncertainty. The production of an error map (associated with any quantity such as fire incidence rates, etc.) is crucial for a representative interpretation and communication of spatial results, and much research has been devoted to the effective visualisation / representation of physical quantities and their associated error (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17237, https://doi.org/10.1002/sta4.150). It would be really interesting for the author to include a discussion of this aspect in the manuscript, both in terms of the present study as well as in the general context of a literature review of existing works in the research topic of residential fire incident (e.g., do other papers in this field usually provide layers of uncertainty?).
The current manuscript alludes to the temporal aspect of the dataset several times, and while the author may deem this aspect to be beyond the scope of the current analysis, I believe that a proper spatio-temporal analysis of the present dataset would lead to further valuable insights. This is mainly based on the fact that the dataset was collated between 2007 and 2015 – it is likely that trends in fire incidence will show different patterns during this eight year period. An in-depth, statistically driven spatio-temporal modelling of the dataset would also allow provide a formal setting for the derivation of uncertainty. The author should comment on the use of such methods for the analysis and visualisation of spatial and temporal trends in the data.
Figure 6: the contents of this figure should be better explained to the readers – in its present form, I am unable to make sense of what message this diagram attempts to convey, which may be due to my unfamiliarity with the ArcGIS software.
Line 313: the word “hardly” means “barely” or “almost not”. I believe a better word here would be “badly”.
Author Response
Author's Reply
Dear Reviewer 2, Thanks for great comments. See my responses below (in red).
This manuscript describes different ways to summarise and display statistics related to residential fires, and analyses their respective characteristics for the purpose of interpretation by emergency services. The pros and cons of these displays was assessed in a qualitative manner during workshops with staff from emergency services. The study focuses on fire incidents in two adjacent municipalities in Sweden. This manuscript is well written, with a satisfactory use of English language. My review comments regarding this paper are provided below.
Point 1: One aspect of the maps presented in this study is that none of them includes an associated layer of uncertainty. The production of an error map (associated with any quantity such as fire incidence rates, etc.) is crucial for a representative interpretation and communication of spatial results, and much research has been devoted to the effective visualisation / representation of physical quantities and their associated error (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17237, https://doi.org/10.1002/sta4.150). It would be really interesting for the author to include a discussion of this aspect in the manuscript, both in terms of the present study as well as in the general context of a literature review of existing works in the research topic of residential fire incident (e.g., do other papers in this field usually provide layers of uncertainty?).
Response 1 (and 2): (I really appreciated this comment): I’ve included a discussion in the section: 3.4 Discussion with some key references + a proposal for further studies on uncertainty in section 4. Conclusions:
- 3.4 Discussion: “This can also be linked to uncertainty when visualizing different map types [39, 40]. Different methods for incorporating and mapping uncertainty may increase the possibility of more accurate interpretations and analyzes of the information in different map visualizations [41]. Some research also indicates the need to include methods for uncertainty assessments in visualizations of spatiotemporal datasets [42]. Although uncertainty is an extensive field in risk research, there are still few applications related to map visualizations of fires, e.g. visualization of wildfire hazard [43, 44].”
Added references:
- MacEachren, A.M. Visualizing uncertain information. Cartographic Perspectives, 1992 13, 10–19. DOI:10.14714/CP13.1000.
- MacEachren, A.M.; Robinson, A.; Hopper, S.; Gardner, S.; Murray, R.; Gahegan, M.; Hetzler, E. Visualizing geospatial information uncertainty: what we know and what we need to know. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 2005, 32 (3), 139–160, DOI: 10.1559/1523040054738936.
- Lydia R. Lucchesi, L.R.; Wikle, C.K. Visualizing uncertainty in areal data with bivariate choropleth maps, map pixelation and glyph rotation. Stat 2017, 6 (1). DOI: 10.1002/sta4.150
- Alberti, K. Web-based visualization of uncertain spatio-temporal data 2013 MSc. Thesis. Utrecht University. Available online: http://karssenberg.geo.uu.nl/_static/Alberti_K_Thesis_Webbased_Uncertainty_Visualization.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2020).
- Cheong, L.; Bleischb, S.; Kealya, A.; Tolhurstc, K.; Wilkeningd, T.; Duckhame, M. Evaluating the impact of visualization of wildfire hazard upon decision-making under uncertainty International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2016, 30 (7), 1377–1404, DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2015.1131829.
- Amatulli, G.; Peréz-Cabello, F.; de la Riva, J. Mapping lightning/human-caused wildfires occurrence under ignition point location uncertainty, Ecological Modelling 2007, 200 (3), 321-333 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.08.001.
- 4. Conclusion: … how uncertainty in map visualizations of residential fires can be highlighted and further analyzed, especially in relation to spatio-temporal variations of fires. The weaknesses presented in Table 3 can be used as a direct input to further discussions and mappings of uncertainty in spatial and temporal trends of residential fires. Other important issues include...
Point 2: The current manuscript alludes to the temporal aspect of the dataset several times, and while the author may deem this aspect to be beyond the scope of the current analysis, I believe that a proper spatio-temporal analysis of the present dataset would lead to further valuable insights. This is mainly based on the fact that the dataset was collated between 2007 and 2015 – it is likely that trends in fire incidence will show different patterns during this eight year period. An in-depth, statistically driven spatio-temporal modelling of the dataset would also allow provide a formal setting for the derivation of uncertainty. The author should comment on the use of such methods for the analysis and visualisation of spatial and temporal trends in the data.
Response 2: I find that this comment can be related to Point 1 and has therefore incorporated it there.
Point 3: Figure 6: the contents of this figure should be better explained to the readers – in its present form, I am unable to make sense of what message this diagram attempts to convey, which may be due to my unfamiliarity with the ArcGIS software.
Response 3: I’v tried to explain each step in the process of “the spatial join of fire data to subareas and grids and normalization with population” data below the model. I’ve added that the model comes from ArcGIS desktop and developed by the tool model builder.
Point 4: Line 313: the word “hardly” means “barely” or “almost not”. I believe a better word here would be “badly”.
Response 4: Good point, “badly” is much better!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this valuable contribution. It is an excellent example for data integration, as it is mentioned at the UN, and pragmatic use case. The paper is clearly written. The intention and research question are well defined.
Table 3 (line 382) is the heart of this paper "Strengths and weaknesses of the visualization methods and possible fields for spatial application
of residential fires". This table expresses the result of research, which is therefore easily examined by the reader.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report
Thanks for your positive comments!
/the Author
