Evaluation of Urban Quality Improvement Based on the MABAC Method and VIKOR Method: A Case Study of Shandong Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled "Evaluation of Urban Quality Improvement Based on the MABAC Method and VIKOR Method: A Case Study of Shandong Province, China" is interesting, but contains some serious flaws. In this case I have some suggestions which could improve the paper

- line 12: "...At the present stage of urbanization..." should be specified. In the world, China, study area? There are large differences of urbanization worldwide.

- The goal of the paper is not clear. It should be flow from previous studies, and show what new authors introduced to existing knowledge. Withoiut it it hard to say if authors achieved their goals. 

- I suggest to add map of China with study area around page 6. It will more clearly do find the area for non Chinese readers

- In Discussion chapter, authors must discuss their findings with previous studies 

- Sustainability is the interantional Journal, so in conclusion authors should give some words about possibilty of application of their method in other countries

good luck with the paper!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REFEREE REPORT SUSTAINABILITY-2941515

The paper “Evaluation of Urban Quality Improvement Based on the 2 MABAC Method and VIKOR Method: A Case Study of 3 Shandong Province, China” has been submitted to Sustainability. The paper investigates the Urban renewal in the Province of Shandong, by the implementing of MABAC Method and VIKOR Method. To this aim, the Authors aggregates some indicators combining subjective and objective weights.  

            The paper fits with the journals aim and the research proposal is clear. However, some issues have to be improved:

I.               In formulas (1) and (2) are presented, according to the Authors, standardization methods. However, it seems that the formulas are normalizations, not standardizations.

II.             At the end of the explanation of VIKOR method, Step 5 about the sorting may be described more in detail and not only cited. 

III.           The coefficient of variation method, implied to calculate objective weights, should be presented in detail in the methodological section.

Moreover, a careful attention should be given to the Tables’ presentation. For example, Table 2 is chaotic and not understandable at all.

Language editing required: moderate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

please find below my comments and questions to be addressed to improve your manuscript.

Abstract:

Paragraph lines 21-31 should be reduced – these are information to be included in the introduction section, not in abstract. Please keep the abstract short and concise.

1. Introduction:

Lines 38-42: please mention for which region, city or country is applicable.

Otherwise this section is well written, in my opinion.

2. Literature review

I find this section appropriate.

3. Methods

Please improve figure 1 – text is not visible in all text boxes

First paragraph should be a little bit improved, in order to make the research steps more clear. Maybe in connection with figure 1 which is clear.

Line 248 “which correspond to satisfaction evaluation 'satisfaction, general, 248 and satisfaction.'” Could you please explain this?

Table 2 – something seems wrong in the second part of the table. Please check.

4.

For the paragraph lines 289-298 and also 309-316 could be used a numbering or bullets, so that the idea (the ranking) is more clear and visible.

Evaluation Based on the Numerical Index – where do you get the 20 indicators from?

5. Discussions

Which are the limitations of this study?

6. Conclusions

This research approach can be replicated in other regions? How can you replace the data obtained from the report used?

Which are the benefits of this research? What is new and original?

Some formualtions should be imrpvoed to make the ideas clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments addressed. 

Some phrasing could be improved.