# Beyond Static Estimates: Dynamic Simulation of Fire-Evacuation Interaction in Historical Districts
## 3 Results
### Evacuations out of Historical District  
During the evacuation from the fire-affected historical district to the designated emergency shelter area, the average evacuation distances in the 2-600 and 16-600 scenarios increased by approximately 5.75% and 0.5%, respectively, compared to the static scenario--substantially lower than the increases observed within the historical district. However, the growth in evacuation duration remains significant, with average evacuation times in both scenarios exceeding the static estimates by 78% to 93%. The distribution of evacuation time shows that over half of the evacuees required more than 800 s, markedly deviating from static assumptions.  
In addition, notable discrepancies are observed between the flow distribution at the emergency shelter entrances and the evacuee flow exiting the historical district (Figure 9). The southeastern entrance consistently exhibited a significantly higher pedestrian flow per meter of width compared to the western entrance. Further analysis reveals that, although the number of evacuees exiting the western side of the historical district is more than three times that of the eastern side, the western entrance of the shelter (70 m wide) is considerably wider than the southeastern entrance (7 m wide). Meanwhile, the northeastern entrance--despite its potential--is not utilized, likely due to its distance from nearby exit points.  
This mismatch in spatial layout and flow direction causes greater congestion pressure at the southeastern entrance, where the maximum and average pedestrian flow per meter of width are 3 to 4 times higher than at the western entrance. This discrepancy is especially pronounced during the first 15 min, when the southeastern entrance flow rate increased rapidly, creating conditions that may heighten the risk of evacuation-related accidents (Figure 9e,f).  
The differences between the two unfavorable scenarios are relatively minor. However, the 16-600 scenario exhibited a faster increase in entrance flow during the initial 15 min. At approximately 17.5 min, the flow rate at the southeastern entrance in the 16-600 scenario reached 261 persons per meter, compared to 224 persons per meter in the 2-600 scenario. This disparity can be attributed to a higher proportion of detour behavior in 2-600, which reduced the number of evacuees arriving at the shelter at the same time and thereby alleviated short-term traffic pressure.  
Regarding smoke dispersion analysis, the prevailing wind directions examined in this study are southwest and east winds. Under these wind conditions, the designated evacuation destination (Diqing Square) is not positioned downwind from the historical district. While the emergency shelter falls within the potential outdoor smoke influence range of several hundred meters, it does not lie directly in the downwind path of smoke dispersion from either fire scenario.  
Figure 9: Traffic load outside historical district: (**a**) Traffic load in scenario 2-600, (**b**) Traffic load in scenario 16-600, (**c**) Static traffic load, (**d**) Pedestrian flow at entrances, (**e**) Traffic flow at the west and southeast entrances of emergency shelter in scenario 2-600, (**f**) Traffic flow at the west and southeast entrances of emergency shelter in scenario 16-600.  
These findings indicate that there is a mismatch between the location and capacity of shelter entrances and the spatial-temporal characteristics of evacuation flows from the historical district, posing potential risks to evacuation safety and efficiency.