A Case Study for an Assessment of Fire Station Selection in the Central Urban Area

Comments from reviewer #1

Response to reviewer 1

1.      In the Title, it would be appropriate to indicate that the study is only a “study case”.

We appreciate your suggestion and agree that specifying the scope of the study in the title will set clearer expectations for readers. We agree that specifying the nature of the study in the title will set clearer expectations for the readers. We revise the title “A Case Study for An Assessment of Fire Station Selection in the Central Urban Area” to reflect this.

2.      Arrange keywords alphabetically.

We express our gratitude for your meticulousness and shall reorganize the keywords in alphabetical order in accordance with the journal’s criteria.

3.      In this paper some equations are used. So, a nomenclature is quite desirable.

We acknowledge the importance of a nomenclature for the clarity of the equations presented in our study. A nomenclature section was added to the manuscript to define each variable and parameter used, ensuring that our work is accessible to readers from various disciplines.

4.      In the abstract, the Introduction and the conclusion it would be appropriate to indicate that this article is only a study case. It can be seen as a first step in the field of research on this issue. In other words, it should be mentioned that this approach involves specific assumptions. Caution should therefore be exercised when interpreting the results.

We greatly value your advice regarding this subject. The abstract, introduction, and conclusion will be revised to specify more explicitly that this article describes a case study. It will be emphasized that the conclusions draw from particular assumptions and that this study ought to be considered a preliminary investigation in the ongoing field of study. This will guarantee that the readers possess an understanding of the study's context and constraints, as well as the necessity for meticulous interpretation of the findings. We mentioned that this is a case study in the Introduction, Research objects, and conclusion section.

5.      The authors should cite some of the past similar studies. However, the document must make some mention of the contribution to the field of research. In other words, what has been learned here that adds to the previous studies. Perhaps the main contribution is that our community needs relevant case studies to compare, test and improve our theoretical models and hypotheses.

Your recognition of the significance of placing our study within the wider research framework is greatly appreciated. We shall incorporate a comprehensive literature review to acknowledge prior research and shall explicitly state the way in which our work contributes to the field. By comparing, testing, and refining theoretical models and hypotheses in the field, we will specifically demonstrate how this case study contributes a valuable dimension to the existing corpus of knowledge. We have cited the relevant reference in the introduction.

6.      The main issue nowadays is the emergence of extreme fire events. These events are very difficult to control and often overwhelm suppression capabilities. In the Introduction, the global context of the study should be better explained. For instance, the authors could explain why we should rely on risk knowledge to develop effective fire-risk policies and use more science and less rules of thumb. I suggest the authors to read(add) the following reference:

Casartelli, V.; Mysiak, J. European Union Civil Protection - Peer Review Programme for Disaster Risk Management: Wildfire Peer Review Assessment Framework (Wildfire PRAF); 2023. https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/Wildfire_PRAF_V2.pdf

And watch this webinar:

https://mcr2030.undrr.org/news/tackling-urban-heat-and-wildfire-risk-inclusive-governance-systems

We recognize the utmost significance of situating our research within the contemporary worldwide predicament of extreme fire incidents. As a result of your insightful comments, we shall revise the introduction to furnish a more exhaustive synopsis of the frequency and consequences of such occurrences. This will encompass a discourse on the drawbacks of conventional rule-of-thumb methodologies and the increasing imperative for risk evaluation and policy formulation grounded in empirical evidence. In order to tackle this matter, we shall utilize the recommended scholarly work, Casartelli and Mysiak (2023), to examine the European Union's methodology for assessing the risk of wildfires and the potential implications for fire-risk policies. In addition, to strengthen the argument, we will assess and incorporate insights from the webinar regarding strategies for mitigating the risks of wildfires and urban temperatures. Through this endeavor, we hope to emphasize the scientific merit of our case study as a contribution that aids in the formulation of efficacious fire-risk policies—critical given the escalating frequency and intensity of fire incidents. It is our conviction that the revised context will not only address the reviewer's apprehensions but also fortify the paper's pertinence and practicality in relation to present and forthcoming obstacles in the field of disaster risk management. We have cited the relevant reference in the introduction.

7.      In the Introduction, it would be appropriate to indicate more clearly the organization of the paper.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to clarify the structure of our paper. To improve the readability and flow, we will revise the introduction to include a brief overview of each section. This roadmap will guide readers through the progression of our study, from the methodology through to the findings and conclusions.

The revised introduction will now include a sentence such as: "This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature, Section 3 describes the methodology employed in the case study, Section 4 presents the results and discussion, and Section 5 concludes with the implications of our findings for fire station selection and risk management practices." in introduction.

8.      In order to estimate the quality of the results provided in this article, it would be interesting for the authors to statistically study the difference between current layout results and the results obtained with their improved layout. For instance, they could test the time saved (or not) for the “worst location” for both configurations.

We are grateful for this insightful suggestion. To address the reviewer's point, we will conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis comparing the current fire station layout with our proposed improved layout. This analysis will include a time-saving assessment for emergency responses, particularly focusing on the "worst location" scenario, which represents the most challenging and critical situations for fire services.

We will employ appropriate statistical methods to quantify the differences and evaluate the effectiveness of the improved layout. The results of this analysis will be added to the results section, providing a robust basis for evaluating the quality and practical implications of our study's outcomes.

By incorporating this analysis, we aim to enrich the manuscript with a clear, empirical assessment of the proposed improvements, thereby offering a tangible measure of the study's impact on fire station selection and emergency response optimization. We added the sentences in Lines 307–316.

9.      Eq. 5, xi is not defined.

Thank you for pointing out this oversight. We have reviewed the manuscript and acknowledge that the variable xi was indeed not defined in the context of Eq. 5. To rectify this, we will amend the nomenclature section to include a clear definition of xi, ensuring that all variables in our equations are thoroughly explained. We will ensure that this amendment is made prior to the publication of the paper to maintain the integrity and clarity of our mathematical modeling.

10.  L. 159, Could the authors clarify what D and d are?

We appreciate the reviewer's request for clarification. In line 159, D represents the maximum allowable distance between any demand point and the nearest facility, which is a constraint in our model ensuring that all demand points are within a serviceable range. On the other hand,

d_ij denotes the minimum distance between a specific demand point i and a candidate facility j. This variable is used in the objective function and constraints to minimize the total distance between demand points and selected facilities, thereby optimizing the overall effectiveness of the facility layout. To improve the manuscript, we will update line 159 to read: "In the proposed model, the variable D is characterized as the upper limit for the distance that a facility can be located from any demand location, hence guaranteeing adequate accessibility within the designated service area. Simultaneously, the variable dij represents the quantified minimum distance between demand point i and candidate facility j, which plays a crucial role in the process of selecting a facility."

This additional explanation will be included in the nomenclature or within the text where these terms first appear to ensure that the definitions are clear and the notation is consistent throughout the paper.

11.  L. 250-251, “Response time, road capacity, natural topography, and economic development are critical factors that serve as the foundation for establishing fire station candidate points and revising the selection of fire station sites”. Could the authors explain in more detail their choice of factors?

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for providing us with the chance to further discuss the crucial issues that impact the decision-making process when selecting fire station locations. The selection of these elements is based on a combination of scholarly research and practical considerations to enhance the efficacy of emergency response.

We added the detail sentence "The measurement of response time is a fundamental indicator of performance within the realm of emergency services. The objective is to reduce this duration in order to guarantee prompt provision of services during critical situations. The capacity of road networks to accommodate emergency vehicle traffic without substantial delays is of paramount importance, as congested roads can hinder response times. This element is taken into consideration in relation to traffic flow and emergency response. The topographical characteristics of a region can have a substantial influence on the ease of access and efficiency of emergency response efforts. For example, hilly topographies may necessitate a greater distribution of strategically positioned stations in comparison to flat regions. The correlation between economic development and the frequency of occurrences, as well as the availability of resources for emergency response, is a significant factor to consider. Regions characterized by greater economic activity may exhibit a heightened vulnerability of infrastructure, hence necessitating a more resilient fire service coverage." in 3.1 section.

12.  It could be very interesting to carry out a quantitative sensitivity analysis to identify factors that need to be chosen carefully because of their significant impact on model predictions. A discussion is required to point out these sensitivities. I suggest

The significance of conducting sensitivity analysis in quantitative modeling is well acknowledged, since it provides valuable insights into the reliability and resilience of our model predictions. It is widely acknowledged that the identification of influential elements that have a substantial impact on the output of a model is of utmost importance for ensuring the validity of our study and facilitating the practical implementation of our findings. In light of the reviewer's recommendation, we will proceed with performing a sensitivity analysis on the pivotal components of our model. This will entail manipulating each factor within a plausible range and examining the resultant impact on the model's prognostications. The variables to be considered in this research encompass reaction time, road capacity, natural topography, and economic development, among other characteristics that are fundamental to our approach. The outcomes of this sensitivity analysis will be incorporated into a distinct paragraph within the results and discussion segment of our publication. This paper aims to present a comprehensive analysis of the model's sensitivity to variations in individual factors, and subsequently, to examine the potential consequences of these sensitivities for the optimal placement of fire stations and the planning of emergency response strategies. The inclusion of this addition is anticipated to enhance the paper's overall strength by offering a more exhaustive comprehension of the model's behavior across many scenarios. Consequently, it is expected to assist policymakers and practitioners in making well-informed judgments.

We added sentences “To evaluate the resilience of our model and the dependability of its forecasts, we performed a quantitative sensitivity analysis. The objective of this research was to determine the parameters that have the most influence on the output of the model, therefore offering valuable insights into the variables that should be selected with careful consideration. The major factors, including reaction time, road capacity, natural terrain, and economic development, were subjected to variations within a realistic range, taking into account probable fluctuations that may occur in the real world. The model's sensitivity to these differences was assessed by examining the resultant alterations in the estimated best fire station placements. The sensitivity analysis serves the purpose of both validating the current application of the model and providing guidance for future revisions to the model in response to emerging facts or priorities.” in introducion.

Comments from reviewer #2

Response to reviewer 2

1.      Research objectives: Section 2.1 discusses research objectives where readers cannot clearly understand the objectives. Clear optimization goals were not indicated in this section, so it was difficult to understand how the results later would be evaluated.

We appreciate the reviewer's observation on the clarity of our study aims. In order to effectively address this matter, it is imperative that we undertake a revision of Section 2.1 with the explicit intention of clearly articulating our optimization objectives. The redesigned section will provide a comprehensive overview of our objectives, which entail the optimization of both the quantity and distribution of fire stations. This optimization aims to enhance response times, coverage, and accessibility, while taking into account pertinent economic and social considerations. In addition, an outline of the parameters used to assess the outcomes will be provided, encompassing the decrease in response durations, expanded coverage region, and the cost-efficiency of the suggested arrangement.

2.      Research methods: Section 2.2 lays out 6 models in Table 1, yet not all of these models are in fact used or discussed in the paper. With the unclear objectives in Section 2.1, it becomes more difficult to understand the optimization goals/parameters and why only some of the models are selected and used.

We express our gratitude for the reviewer's valuable suggestions regarding Section 2.2 and acknowledge the necessity of enhancing the clarity in our exposition of the research techniques. In the forthcoming section, we will guarantee that every model enumerated in Table 1 is supported by a lucid elucidation of its pertinence to the objectives of our study. A comprehensive explanation will be provided for the exclusion of the models that were not utilized, elucidating the reasons behind their unsuitability for our particular optimization objectives. Additionally, we will enhance the correlation between the models and our research goals, which have been elucidated in the amended Section 2.1. This paper will provide a comprehensive analysis of the optimization parameters utilized in each model, elucidating their respective contributions towards enhancing response times, coverage, and accessibility while adhering to economic and societal limitations. The sentence that provides clarification was included in 2.1 section.

3.      Figure 2 and Figure 3 look identical. Where are fire rescue demand points in Figure 3?

Thank you for your comment, we have modified the Figure 3.

4.      In section 3.2, please define “fire request points” clearly. And explain why and how these request points are revised (this is to explain the sentence “Abstract grid center points were extracted and designated as revised request points”).

We acknowledge the need for clarity and will address this in the revised manuscript in Lines 355–358. "Fire request points" refer to the specific locations within the urban area of CZ city where emergency fire services are potentially required. These points are derived from a combination of historical incident data, areas of high population density, and locations of significant risk such as industrial zones or areas with high levels of human activity.

The revision of these points was undertaken to reflect the dynamic nature of urban development and changes in population density. The process involved updating the grid to represent the current urban layout more accurately. We extracted the center points of the updated grid cells and designated these as the revised request points. This method ensures that the request points are evenly distributed across the urban area, providing a more realistic representation of where fire services might be needed. The revision process allows for a more accurate and up-to-date assessment of fire station coverage and is crucial for the optimization of their locations.

5.      The titles of Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 are the same, ‘Optimization of layout solution’. Please fix them.

We express our gratitude for bringing this matter to our attention. The titles assigned to Sections 4.1 and 4.2 were mistakenly duplicated. In order to address this issue, we put forth the subsequent amended headings to precisely depict the substance of each section:

Section 4.1: "Preliminary Optimization of Fire Station Layout"

Section 4.2: "Enhanced Optimization Utilizing Revised Demand Points"

The new titles aim to differentiate the two sections. Section 4.1 will concentrate on the initial optimization endeavors utilizing the original data, while Section 4.2 will elaborate on the subsequent optimization that integrates the revised demand points to get a layout solution that is more precise and efficient.

6.      In section 4.1, “A total of 19 facility candidate points were identified” and the paper refers to [43–46] without giving any brief explanation. Please provide a short summary, so that readers can understand how these 19 points were identified.

We acknowledge the reviewer's inquiry for a more comprehensive elucidation of our methods. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate a succinct summary that clarifies the process by which the 19 potential facility locations were determined. The spots were chosen by a multi-criteria decision analysis, which considered many aspects including population density, historical incidence rates, closeness to high-risk zones, and accessibility in relation to pre-existing road networks.

7.      In section 4.1, the sentence, “A comparison between Figures 7 and 8 reveals that after the fire stations in downtown CZ city were repositioned, the fire protection coverage was considerably enhanced, with the coverage rate increasing from 30.13% to 98.46%” is unclear. Please re-write this sentence to give more explanations. ‘after the fire stations in downtown CZ city were repositioned’ à Do you mean ‘with the increased number of fire stations of 19’, the fire protection coverage was considerable enhanced?

We recognize the necessity for enhanced precision in our explication of the findings. The sentence will be updated in the text as follows:

In the present study, as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8, we provide evidence to support the notion that the enhancement of fire protection coverage in downtown CZ city was achieved with the augmentation of fire stations to a total of 19, along with their strategic repositioning as determined by our optimization model. The coverage rate was increased from 30.13% using the initial seven stations to 98.46% with the optimum arrangement of 19 stations, consequently enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of the fire protection service throughout the urban region.

8.      Also, for the same sentence above, please show the coverage areas of 30.13% to 98.46% in Figure 8 and Figure 7, respectively.

We express our gratitude for the reviewer's valuable remark regarding the need for more visual clarification. As a reaction, we will make modifications to Figures 7 and 8 in order to enhance the clarity of the depicted coverage areas.

9.      In Section 4.1, it was stated that “This optimized arrangement would maximize economic and social benefits and effectively meet the fire rescue needs of downtown CZ city.”. The paper does not show any analysis done on the economic and social benefit caused by the distribution of the new 19 fire station. Therefore, please provide sufficient analysis and discussion on them.

We acknowledge the gap identified by the reviewer and will address this in the revised manuscript. To substantiate the claim of maximized economic and social benefits, we will include a new subsection providing a detailed analysis of the potential economic impacts, such as cost savings from reduced fire damage due to improved response times, and the social benefits, including enhanced public safety and community resilience against fire incidents. This analysis will draw on case studies and models from existing literature that quantify the benefits of efficient emergency service distribution. Additionally, we will discuss the potential for improved quality of life and community trust in emergency services, which are crucial social benefits of the optimized fire station arrangement.

By incorporating this analysis, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the optimized layout of fire stations can contribute to the economic and social well-being of downtown CZ city.

The sentence that provides clarification was included in conclusion section.

Comments from reviewer #3

Response to reviewer 3

1.      The presented example of the method used is local, referring to only one city. The authors could refer to their results in a broader aspect so that the text does not look like developing a site plan for a specific location.

We appreciate the input provided by all reviewers and acknowledge the significance of striking a balance between the particular of a case study and its broader relevance. In the next updated manuscript, we shall uphold the case study orientation, concurrently addressing the aspects of scalability and adaptability inherent in our methodologies. This paper aims to demonstrate the applicability of the principles and tactics utilized in the CZ city case study as a potential framework for other urban areas, considering their distinct geographical, demographic, and infrastructural attributes. This methodology will guarantee that our research yields comprehensive perspectives on a particular geographical area, while simultaneously providing helpful recommendations for wider urban fire protection strategies.

2.      In my opinion, the location of the fire brigade headquarters depends on the capabilities of the commune/city—availability of land, legal status, budget, human resources, etc. Therefore, the locations generated in the model are purely hypothetical. Additionally, in some countries, professional units are supplemented by volunteers who are excellent at handling simpler tasks. This issue was also not addressed by the authors.

The significance of local considerations in deciding the location of fire brigade headquarters is duly recognized. In the revised publication, we will explicate that although our model presents a theoretical framework for optimum fire station sites, the practical application would necessitate the consideration of local restrictions, including land availability, legal considerations, and budgetary constraints. Furthermore, our study will examine the significant role played by volunteer fire units and explore potential strategies for their seamless integration within the proposed emergency response system. The sentence that provides clarification was included in 4.1 section.

3.      In the conclusions, the authors write: "Supplementing the coverage of existing fire stations through the addition of new stations can ensure comprehensive fire protection coverage". This is obvious. I would suggest adding a chapter to the text where the authors would discuss exactly how they see their idea applied in practice.

We agree with the reviewer that practical implications are essential for the utility of our research. We will include a new section in the manuscript dedicated to discussing the practical application of our model. This section will outline a step-by-step approach for municipalities to assess their current fire station coverage, identify gaps, and strategically plan for new stations using the principles derived from our study. The sentence that provides clarification was included in 4.1 section.

4.      Authors should demonstrate what is clearly new beyond other articles available and cited by them, e.g. Deng, Y.; Li, A.; Dou, W. Comparative analysis of urban fire station layout planning models. J. Geo-inf. Sci. 2008, 242–246.

In light of this constructive input, we will further improve the segment of our paper that presents a comparative analysis of our research in relation to the current body of literature. The unique elements of our methodology will be emphasized, particularly the incorporation of advanced Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques inside a multi-criteria decision-making framework. This distinction sets our research apart from the study conducted by Deng et al. (2008). The sentence that provides clarification was included in introducion section.

5.      What is the reason for self-citations 44-46 in the field of calorimetry?

The referenced references will be thoroughly examined to ascertain that all instances of citations are directly pertinent to the primary subject of the study. In the event that any citations are identified as irrelevant, they will be eliminated and substituted with more appropriate references. Our team will take measures to guarantee that all references included in the study are relevant to the context and effectively support the methodology and findings.