Urban fires are highly destructive with high casualty rates, often causing significant casualties and property losses. The obstruction of the Community Emergency Corridor System is a critical factor exacerbating fire casualties, directly related to residents’ life safety and public security governance effectiveness. Currently, community emergency corridors face severe systemic bottlenecks in the coordinated development of triadic space (physical, social, and information spaces), and the lag of information space has become a fatal shortcoming restricting emergency response efficiency, highlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation framework. However, existing studies mostly focus on a single spatial dimension, lacking a systematic framework for the coordinated patency of triadic space. Based on this, this study adopts the triadic space perspective, takes 77 typical communities in China as research objects, and uses the Entropy Weighted TOPSIS method to construct an evaluation index system for the accessibility of the Community Emergency Corridor System and systematically measure its level. The results show that the patency of triadic space is unbalanced overall; social space outperforms physical and information spaces (with the latter being the lowest), reflecting deficiencies in emergency information release and acquisition. Regionally, accessibility in Northeast China is significantly higher than in other regions (Northeast > West > Central > East), and eastern China has the lowest scores in physical and information spaces due to high urbanization, dense buildings, and land scarcity. Corresponding countermeasures are proposed to address regional disparities. The triadic space evaluation framework and methodological path provide a replicable analytical tool for urban fire-oriented community emergency management and references for fire resilience governance in other countries or high-density communities.
Cao et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: