Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: Section 2.1 and section 2.2 have the same title. The subtitle of section 2.1 might be Categories Analysis ofAGVCM Social Stability Risk.

Response 1: Thanks for your advices. We changed the title of subsection 2.2 as: Social stability risk evaluation index system of AGVCM

Point 2: What is "Subsubsection" in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2?

Response 2: Thanks for your question. For clear demonstration, We have changed the tile of subsection 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 to ‘Subjective weight set’ and ‘Objective weight set’ respectively.

Point 3: There are two "figure 2", and the second "figure 2" should be deleted.

Response 3: Sorry for the clerical error. We deleted the second Figure 2 and modified the number.

Point 4: Formula (14) corresponds to the calculation  of cloud characteristic values of three level indicators (D1,D2...) based on expert evaluation, and formula (15) corresponds to the calculation of cloud characteristic values of upper level indicators based on weights of lower level indicators. The two formulas are easy to confuse in terms of parameter symbols, for example, both formula (14) and formul (15) have  but their meanings are different, Formula (14) represents obtained from the qualitative evaluation of experts, while formula (15) represents the characteristic valueof each underlying  indicator  calculated according  to  formula  (14).  The  explanation  in  parameter interpretation is good, but it is not reflected in the formula.It is suggested to change the two formulas:

Corresponding explanation:  represents the cloud characteristic value of the jth indicator in a layer after qualitative judgment by the ith expert,  represents the cloud characteristic value of the jth indicator in a layer, and  represents the cloud characteristic value of the upper indicator in that layer.

Response 4: Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestion. We have modified formula (14) and (15) based on the comments.

Point 5: In the result analysis, the risk level of B1, B2, B3 and A is small, while the risk level of B4 is general, so the analysis can be added: it indicates that the content of B4 (project rationality) can be focused on when the risk level of other impacts of the project is low. At the same time, through the comparison between the model judgment and the assessment results of the Interim Measures for Social Stability Risk Assessment of Major Fixed Assets Investment Projects, it is found that the assessment risk level of some aspects is higher than the assessment in the Measures, indicating that the model is helpful to better identify the key factors affecting the project risk level. This part can be briefly explained: for example, the risk level of indicators at all levels under the B4 indicator is analyzed, explain what needs to be focused on in this area.

Response 5: Thanks for your advice here. We have modified the result analysis according to the comments. The specifics is as follows:

‘Tab.5 shows that: (1) The risk assessment results of the optimal combination weighting-cloud model are basically consistent with the evaluation results of t Measures, which proves the validity and reliability of the model. (2)The assessment risk level of some aspects is higher than the assessment in the Measures, indicating that the model is helpful to better identify the key factors affecting the project risk level, t, so as to formulate targeted prevention and mitigation Measures.’

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting and relevant topic within the tradition of multicriteria analysis (MCA) and risk assessment. Potentially, a valuable publication could be prepared on this topic with particular focus on how weights can be determined considering both objective and subjective aspects and multiple stakeholders. However, in its current format it is in my view not ready to be published. Particular changes to be undertaken would be:

- Clarify the scope of the paper (incl. also at the end of Section 1 an outline of how the rest of the paper is structured)

- AGVCM: Specify how the 62 indicators were chosen - were they set already by official decision makers and is it possible to adjust these (and other elements of the index)

- Frame the research within the broader MCA / AHP context and literature to anchor the paper clearly

- Explain clearly the methods being examined in the paper and the particular methodological contribution of the paper). For example, on page 5 the cloud model is mentioned but without providing specifics of this method). Further explanations would be needed. Eventually putting some of the mathematical aspects in a technical annex. 

- Empirical example: This is very useful, but it would be appropriate to include additional information about the application, e.g. what were the steps undertaken and how were the experts chosen for the application

- Attention to future research topics: Identify clearer research limitations and areas for further research. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Point 1: The paper deals with an interesting and relevant topic within the tradition of multicriteria analysis (MCA) and risk assessment. Potentially, a valuable publication could be prepared on this topic with particular focus on how weights can be determined considering both objective and subjective aspects and multiple stakeholders. However, in its current format it is in my view not ready to be published. Particular changes to be undertaken would be:

- Clarify the scope of the paper (incl. also at the end of Section 1 an outline of how the rest of the paper is structured)

 Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the outline description of the structure of this paper at the end of Section 1. The specifics is as follows:

‘On the basis of analyzing social stability risk factors of adjusting goods vehicle cal-culation method, this study establishes AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index sys-tem, proposing AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting-cloud model evaluation modeling, and then regards the social stability risk evaluation project of ad-justing goods vehicle in Yunnan Province as an example to carry out empirical analysis, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the social stability risk evaluation of adjusting goods vehicle.’

Point 2: AGVCM: Specify how the 62 indicators were chosen - were they set already by official decision makers and is it possible to adjust these (and other elements of the index)

Response 2: The indexes are selected according to the public document < Notice on Issuing the National Development and Reform Commission's Interim Measures for Social Stability Risk Assessment of Major Fixed Assets Investment Projects >, in which 4 indexed at level 1, 17 indexes at level 2 and 39 indexes at level three are included. Taking practical feasibility of this study on the policy, e.g., Toll stations at provincial borders in Yunnan Province canceled social stability risk assessment work, into consideration, we just follow the indexes.

Point 3: Frame the research within the broader MCA / AHP context and literature to anchor the paper clearly.

Response 3: We have added 10 references into the paper. The adding literatures are listed as follows:

LIN Hong-chao . Criticism and reconstruction of social stability evaluation system for major administrative decisions[J]. Administrative Law Review. 2018, 3,75-87.

Hong Kai-rong, Huang Qi-bin. Analysis on social stability risk factors of large industrial construction projects under the concept of interactive fairnessabout land acquisition and demolition[J]. Systems Engineering. 2018, 35(7), 154-158.

Wang Xiao-min, Li Miao-ran. Research on the problems and countermeasures of social stability risk assessment in China[C]// International Conference on Social Science & Contemporary Humanity Development. 2016,7-11.

Jiang Jun-jie . The social stability risk assessment mechanism in China: The status quo, challenges and countermeasures[J]. The Journal of Shanghai Administration Institute. 2014, 15(2), 90-96.

Liu Ze-tao , Li Wen-jun . National risk management structural framework in perspective of China social stability risk assessment[C]//Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services (GSIS). IEEE, 2013: 330-334..

Xuan Hu , Wang Chun-hong , Cai Chen-guang , et al. Evolution and coping research for flood disaster social stability risk based on the complex network[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 77(3):1491-1500.

Yang Fang-yong . The study of social work in the social stability risk assessment mechanism - For example of housing demolition[J]. Journal of Social Work. 2013, 3, 29-36.

ZHOU Hang. Preliminary study on social stability risk assessment of Fuping Shichuan river comprehensive improvement project[J]. Urbanization and Land Use. 2021, 9(1), 17-22.

Wu Xiao-tao, Li Ye, Zheng Hua-wei, et al. Social risk assessment of rural land integrated consolidation——A case study at Jiangning district of Nanjiang City[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation. 2015, 35(5), 245-250.

Zhou Hang , Xu Yan . Preliminary study on social stability risk assessment of land integrated renovation project: A case study of shichuan river project in fuping[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2021, 781(2):022058 (5pp).

Point 4: Explain clearly the methods being examined in the paper and the particular methodological contribution of the paper). For example, on page 5 the cloud model is mentioned but without providing specifics of this method). Further explanations would be needed. Eventually putting some of the mathematical aspects in a technical annex. 

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable comment. Depite of that empowerment model and cloud model have been widely-used, the main contribution of this study is to propose the model aiming at minimizing the gap between subjective weights and objective weights for the realistic problem by the optimization approaches. The paper published on China safety Science Journal by authors is the main reference with respect to the cloud model.

Point 5: Empirical example: This is very useful, but it would be appropriate to include additional information about the application, e.g. what were the steps undertaken and how were the experts chosen for the application.

Response 5: Thanks for the comment. We added the MATLAB code into the attachment to demonstrate the procedures of professional evaluation clearly.

Point 6: Attention to future research topics: Identify clearer research limitations and areas for further research. 

Response 6: We have added the demonstration of the limits and futher directions of this study in the conclusions. The specifics are as follows:

‘The evaluation method proposed in this study has certain reference value for AGVCM social stability risk identification and evaluation, but the evaluation index system will be different due to the influence of factors such as geography, policy and implementation conditions, etc. Later, we will focus on the classification and accuracy of the evaluation model based on the factors we has found.’

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has presented an interesting subject matter, but it has some weaknesses which must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

 

1.            Title needs to be revised to clearly reflect the content of the manuscript.

2.            Abstract needs to be improved and checked. For example, the 3 “levels” mentioned in Line 19 should be “grades”.

3.            The meaning of "adjusting goods vehicle calculation method" needs to be explained properly. Does the social risk assessment focus only on goods vehicle?

4.            How were the 4 levels, 3 grades and 62 indicators formulated? Based on the social stability risk evaluation index system of AGVCM shown in Table 1, there are 4 first-grade indicators, 17 second-grade indicators and 39 third-grade indicators. Therefore, what are the 62 indicators?

5.            Based on the graph shown in Figure 1, can the authors generally explain the conditions of “tiny”, “small”, “general”, “large” and “significant” in layman's terms? What would the differences between “tiny” vs “small” and “large” vs “significant” be? Is the term “general” representing the conditions “average”?

6.            For the results shown in Table 2, based on the equation shown (Equation 13), it is just the average of AHP and EWM. Therefore, what is the meaning of “Portfolio Weighting”?

7.            Based on the results shown in Table 3, what is the methodology adopted by the expert to give the score? Likert scale?

 

In general:

·  This paper is lacking a critical and in-depth literature review and only has 20 references. Even though most of the references are related to social stability risks but the applications were different than the one used in the study.

·  The study methodology and the analysis method adopted in the study were not properly explained.

·  Results and discussion must be discussed in a better manner with a comparison of results obtained from other similar studies.

 

·  Suggestion to the authors to seek the assistance of a professional English writer to proofread and improve the article in terms of grammar and composition.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

This paper has presented an interesting subject matter, but it has some weaknesses which must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

Point 1: Title needs to be revised to clearly reflect the content of the manuscript.

Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the title as ‘Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation Method Based on Optimal Combination Weighting-Cloud Model’

 Point 2: Abstract needs to be improved and checked. For example, the 3 “levels” mentioned in Line 19 should be “grades”.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the abstract based on that.

 Point 3: The meaning of "adjusting goods vehicle calculation method" needs to be explained properly. Does the social risk assessment focus only on goods vehicle?

 Response 3: Thanks for your question here. Cancellation of the pricing adjustment is just relevant with trucks, which is clarified by the government document < Implementation Plan for Deepening the Reform of the Toll Road System and Canceling Provincial Boundary Toll Stations on Expressways > launched by executive meeting of the state council of china in the 5th, May, 2019. Therefore, the assessment of social risk is just against trucks.

 Point 4: How were the 4 levels, 3 grades and 62 indicators formulated? Based on the social stability risk evaluation index system of AGVCM shown in Table 1, there are 4 first-grade indicators, 17 second-grade indicators and 39 third-grade indicators. Therefore, what are the 62 indicators?

 Response 4: We constructed the indexes according to the government document < Notice on Issuing the National Development and Reform Commission's Interim Measures for Social Stability Risk Assessment of Major Fixed Assets Investment Projects > and the practice. We have modified the 62 indexes to 60 indexes, in which there are 4 indexes at level 1, 17 indexes at level 2 and 39 indexes at level 3.

 Point 5: Based on the graph shown in Figure 1, can the authors generally explain the conditions of “tiny”, “small”, “general”, “large” and “significant” in layman's terms? What would the differences between “tiny” vs “small” and “large” vs “significant” be? Is the term “general” representing the conditions “average”?

 Response 5: Thanks for your question. ‘tiny’, ‘small’, ‘general’, ‘large’ and ‘significant’ are the expressions of language value of cloud model evaluation, whose  corresponding cloud digital characteristics are ‘significant’(1,0.061,0.003)，’large’(0.76,0.061,0.004)，’general’(0.51,0.061,0.004)，

’small’(0.29,0.061,0.004)，’tiny’(0.001,0.061,0.002). Taking ‘significant’ as an example, the cloud digit characteristic means the expected central value is 1, the degree of dispersion is 0.061, and the uncertainty is 0.003. The distribution probability of the cloud is shown in Figure 1. In addition, ‘tiny’, ‘small’, ‘general’, ‘large’ and ‘significant’ are the ranks of the evaluation on social stability risk, which can be verified by the cloud digital characteristics. Besides, ‘general’ is one of the ranks of the evaluation, not representing the condition ‘average’.

 Point 6: For the results shown in Table 2, based on the equation shown (Equation 13), it is just the average of AHP and EWM. Therefore, what is the meaning of “Portfolio Weighting”?

Response 6: Thank you for the valuable question. Actually, ‘Optimal combination weighting ‘ is more precise instead of ‘Portfolio Weighting’. We have modified it in the whole paper.

Point 7: Based on the results shown in Table 3, what is the methodology adopted by the expert to give the score? Likert scale?

In general:

• This paper is lacking a critical and in-depth literature review and only has 20 references. Even though most of the references are related to social stability risks but the applications were different than the one used in the study.
• The study methodology and the analysis method adopted in the study were not properly explained.
• Results and discussion must be discussed in a better manner with a comparison of results obtained from other similar studies.
• Suggestion to the authors to seek the assistance of a professional English writer to proofread a

Response 7: Thanks for your questions.

• Focusing on the literatures related to the approaches in this study, we have added the literatures in the field of MCA/AHP and proceeded on the comparison and analysis.
• We explained the research approach and the analysis approach in our study.
• In Section 4.3 we compare the results in our study and the official document. Then we analyzed the rationality of our approach.
• We have proofread the writing in the whole paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All questions have been solved in the newest version, and now I agree to publish the manuscript in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thanks for your recognition.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed satisfactorily with the comments raised by the reviewers. Therefore, I would recommend to accept the article with minor revision. Two suggestions for the final version:

1. Include references to T. Saaty's seminal work on the AHP

2. Consider and discuss in the conclusion whether the framework can be applied in other locations within China and elsewhere incl. the possible challenges for such applications. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

Point 1: Include references to T. Saaty's seminal work on the AHP

Response 1: We have added 2 references into the paper. The adding literatures are listed as follows:

Saaty T L. The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach[J]. Operations Research, 2013, 61(5): 1101-1118.

Saaty T, Kułakowski K. Axioms of the analytic hierarchy process (ahp) and its generalization to dependence and feedback: the analytic network process (ANP)[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05777, 2016.

 

Point 2: Consider and discuss in the conclusion whether the framework can be applied in other locations within China and elsewhere incl. the possible challenges for such applications.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the discussion in the Conclusion. The specifics is as follows:

‘The evaluation method proposed in this study has certain reference value for AGVCM social stability risk identification and evaluation, and can be applied to the social stability risk evaluation of similar major projects, but the evaluation index system will be different due to the influence of factors such as geography, policy and implementation conditions, etc. Later, we will focus on the classification and accuracy of the evaluation model based on the factors we has found.’

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the corrections and improvements accordingly. However, there is one issue that needs to be addressed, which is the methodology adopted by the expert to give the score shown in Table 3, which has not been explained in the response.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

Point : The authors have made the corrections and improvements accordingly. However, there is one issue that needs to be addressed, which is the methodology adopted by the expert to give the score shown in Table 3, which has not been explained in the response.

Response : According to the requirements of the project, we invited five experts who are in the field of road construction design, project planning or construction environment evaluation respectively. We provided them the documents of the project and received their anonymous comments of the 39 indexes in the AGVCM Social social stability risk evaluation index system. They might give the comments by their professional skills and experiences, e.g., entropy weight approach. By statistic measures we captured the results in Table 3.