Next Article in Journal
Place-Keeping for Health? Charting the Challenges for Urban Park Management in Practice
Next Article in Special Issue
Cool Pavement Strategies for Urban Heat Island Mitigation in Suburban Phoenix, Arizona
Previous Article in Journal
Investment Sustained by Consumption: A Linear and Nonlinear Time Series Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Binder and Mixture Fatigue Performance of Plant-Produced Road Surface Course Asphalt Mixtures with High Contents of Reclaimed Asphalt
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

A Framework for Introducing Climate-Change Adaptation in Pavement Management

Sustainability 2019, 11(16), 4382;
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: John Kinuthia
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Sustainability 2019, 11(16), 4382;
Received: 12 July 2019 / Revised: 7 August 2019 / Accepted: 8 August 2019 / Published: 13 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Infrastructure Materials and Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and delves into a timely and interesting topic.  The research methodology is well thought out and applied via a case study application to demonstrate the concepts.

Incorporating climate change as part of a PMS is important when exploring design and management applications for future pavement projects.

Application to a coastal-road pavement evaluation site resulted in results presented in this research; however, it would be interesting to see how these compare to application to pavements in a different geographic region.  

The authors has a very comprehensive (and fairly current) reference list.

Overall, a well written paper the should provide new knowledge to pavement stakeholders.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

MDPI: Sustainability-560839: A framework for introducing climate change in coastal-road pavement management.

General comments

The manuscript reports on a framework for the introduction of adaptation to climate change in the management of coastal roads. The manuscript is well written and has no major editorial issues. The work reported is very practical, and has both research and practical considerations. It is therefore very valuable for the management of road infrastructure. However, the manuscript is not easily understood, making it hard to appreciate its full practical value or contribution. There are numerous contributing factors to this situation. Firstly, there is perhaps too much data/information in one manuscript and secondly some of the illustrations are packed with information that is not easy to decipher. For a start, it would be helpful to the reader if the authors briefly explained the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s protocols, such as the Downscaled Climate and Hydrology Projections (DCHP); Coupled Model Intercomparison Phase 5 (CMIP5), and/or the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). Their brief description/elaboration would be helpful to the reader.

The difficulties to the reader are exacerbated by the fact that some illustrations are illegible and would benefit from enhancement. Two solutions are recommended. Firstly, a revision of the manuscript/illustrations to enhance clarity, and secondly the authors to consider splitting the manuscript into two easily read and easily understandable parts/volumes. In its present format, it is more like a design manual, with too much information. The authors should carefully consider where best the split should take place. As a recommendation, the first part should terminate either after the establishment of a Pavement Climate Sensitivity Catalogue (PCSC), or after the establishment of the optimal HMA thicknesses for resiliency. Part 2 should then build on from part one to discuss Adaptation pathways and cost analysis.


Specific comments

The title. It is recommended that the authors consider using “introducing adaptation to climate change” rather than “introducing climate change”. Upon careful scrutiny, it is arguable that “Introducing climate change” does not easily make sense. Section 2.4.1. A brief elaboration on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s protocols is helpful as already argued. Section 2.4.1. The rationale for the rather narrow temperature range 0 to 5 degree is helpful. Section 2.5, line 238. It is recommended that “presented that that” be changed to “presented that” Table 2. Final column could be aligned better with the rest of the rows. The authors should also consider adopting some demarcation of the three zones 2020, 2040 and 2060. Figure 2. The authors should consider adopting a grey colour for the non-green and non-red zones. Section 3.1.2. The reference to “By the end of the century” is rather misleading, considering that Figure 4 covers up to the year 2080. It is best to refer to “By the year 2080……”. Figure 4. This could do with some enhancement (Compare clarity with Figure 7). In Figure 4, various mitigating steps include enhanced font size; each part showing the base thicknesses (e.g. (a) – 406mm etc.), rather than having these in the caption; slightly increasing the data symbols. Figure 5. The trends in part a) that have no data symbols were rather unclear to understand what they stand for. The font size in general could be enhanced. Figure 8. Better (more contrasting) colour regimes could be used to separate the trends. Figure 10. As for Figure 8.


Author Response

Please see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting research topic and well written paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations for interesting studies. Please consider the following 

1.     You considered a HMA overlay thickness required to achieve 85% reliability as a measurable parameter (figure 2 and 3). How it would correspond to improved HMA materials or other rehabilitation technologies eg. cold recycling?

2.     What was the type of critical pavement distress (rutting or cracking). Does HMA overlay is appropriate in the each of considered cases?

3.     What would be differences between results presented in chapter 3 if you adopted bottom-up and top-down approach. Could you compare new method with older ones and give some comments?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop