After the Epidemic, Is the Smart Traffic Management System a Key Factor in Creating a Green Leisure and Tourism Environment in the Move towards Sustainable Urban Development?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Improve the writing style of the document, especially the abstract, since sometimes since the authors explain is confusing. 
2. Line 67 review the word (among others) restaurants, should it be repeated?
3. It is suggested that the document be reviewed by a native speaker of the language in order to adapt the style and spelling.
4. Define the following concepts: centrality, attractiveness, and self-expression, cognition, cognition consistent.
5. Please uniform the font used according to the requirements of the journal.
6. Apparently, there is a repetition of terms and concepts when you mention of internal and external satisfaction (see sections 2.3 and 2.5).
7. Please be concise. Avoid the repeatability of the concept.
8. The font used in the figures and text of the document must be standardized.
9. 9Could you be mixed and/or unify one or more of the hypotheses 1 to 7 of section 3.1? I find possible repeatability in several.
10. When you talk about the PPMCC test, specify that you are referring to the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient test.
11. Define the concept: semi-structured interviews
12. The paragraph “The first part was the basic background, software types, and frequency of use, including gender (male, female), software types (electric bicycles, taxis, subways, high-speed trains, and airplanes), and frequency of use (rarely, occasionally, and often) “is confused. Please explain it widely.
13. Explain in detail the meaning of Table(1). It is confusing and unintelligible. If you used two columns please specify. For example what does Grade/years experience mean? is it a quotient? 1
14. What do you mean by the phrase “After the content validity of the quantitative questionnaire was checked by experts and scholars”.
15. The authors are suggested to explain in detail the meaning of the parameters alpha, p and more in the results of their analysis via SPSS.
16. Define the concept and the mean of The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test is a measure of how suited your data is for Factor Analysis.
17. It would be wise to show the data used in the model test. And if possible the questionnaires.
18. It is suggested to delete the following block of text “However, due to the limitations of research funding, manpower, and material resources, and the COVID-19 pandemic … improve the research topic”.
19. Ethical considerations (section 3.5) are considered unnecessary in this document. It is suggested to remove them.
20. Section 4 looks like a repetition of the methods used in the experiment. It is suggested to present only the results of the process under the title numerical example or another similar one, preferably in tabular form, or explain in the corresponding section the existence of the tabular results at the end of your document.
21.   It is no longer necessary to subdivide the comments in the conclusions section. Make a prose description of the results obtained, comparative aspects, improvements achieved, and probable future lines of research.
22. Specify clearly in which part of the conclusions the achievement of the objective is hold and where you proves or refutes your hypotheses.
23. The original contribution of the document is specified only to the calculation of the statistical estimators of goodness of fit to the experiment? Or did the authors create some multiple fit model to the data shown? For example a linear model for prediction purposes.

Author Response

Review 1

Improve the writing style of the document, especially the abstract, since sometimes since the authors explain is confusing. 

Dear reviewer

For the style of the manuscript and the way of writing, we have entrusted relevant objects to assist in corrections and corrections of related errors.

Line 67 review the word (among others) restaurants, should it be repeated?

Dear reviewer

We have revised the mistyped words in the manuscript. hotels

It is suggested that the document be reviewed by a native speaker of the language in order to adapt the style and spelling.

Dear reviewer

For the style and writing style in the manuscript, we have entrusted the relevant object to assist in the correction, and have done our best to adjust it.

Hope to get your approval.

Define the following concepts: centrality, attractiveness, and self-expression, cognition, cognition consistent.

Dear reviewer

We have supplemented the manuscript with definitions of relevant proper terms. Ok-211-213

Please uniform the font used according to the requirements of the journal.

Dear reviewer

We have standardized the font of the manuscript.

Apparently, there is a repetition of terms and concepts when you mention of internal and external satisfaction (see sections 2.3 and 2.5).

Dear reviewer

We have revised the same repetitive narrative of Sections 2.3 and 2.5.

Please be concise. Avoid the repeatability of the concept.

Dear reviewer

We have revised the same repetitive narrative.

The font used in the figures and text of the document must be standardized.

Dear reviewer

We have standardized the font of the manuscript.

Could you be mixed and/or unify one or more of the hypotheses 1 to 7 of section 3.1? I find possible repeatability in several.

Dear reviewer

We have narrowed down the hypothetical content to reduce the likelihood of duplication.。

When you talk about the PPMCC test, specify that you are referring to the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient test.

Dear reviewer

We've added Pearson's full noun.

Define the concept: semi-structured interviews

Dear reviewer

We have supplemented the full definition of semi-structured interviews. line 275-278.

The paragraph “The first part was the basic background, software types, and frequency of use, including gender (male, female), software types (electric bicycles, taxis, subways, high-speed trains, and airplanes), and frequency of use (rarely, occasionally, and often) “is confused. Please explain it widely.

Dear reviewer

We have supplemented the ranking definition for background analysis. line 276-280.

Explain in detail the meaning of Table(1). It is confusing and unintelligible. If you used two columns please specify. For example what does Grade/years experience mean? is it a quotient? 1

Dear reviewer

We mean, Age or years of employment. We have fixed this bug. As in Table 1.

What do you mean by the phrase “After the content validity of the quantitative questionnaire was checked by experts and scholars”.

Dear reviewer

We reworked the narrative and added this description. Line 287-288.

The authors are suggested to explain in detail the meaning of the parameters alpha, p and more in the results of their analysis via SPSS.

Dear reviewer

We have supplemented the explanation of the meaning of alpha, p, etc. Line 290-291.

 

Define the concept and the mean of The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test is a measure of how suited your data is for Factor Analysis.

Dear reviewer

We define the concept of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test. Line 288-289.

 

It would be wise to show the data used in the model test. And if possible the questionnaires. Dear reviewer

We supplement this note. Add Table 2.

 

It is suggested to delete the following block of text “However, due to the limitations of research funding, manpower, and material resources, and the COVID-19 pandemic … improve the research topic”.

Dear reviewer

We refer to your suggestion to delete the relevant content in the manuscript.

 

Ethical considerations (section 3.5) are considered unnecessary in this document. It is suggested to remove them.

Dear reviewer

We refer to your suggestion to delete the relevant content in the manuscript.

 

Section 4 looks like a repetition of the methods used in the experiment. It is suggested to present only the results of the process under the title numerical example or another similar one, preferably in tabular form, or explain in the corresponding section the existence of the tabular results at the end of your document.

Dear reviewer

In the text, we supplement the location of the table and we adjusted the conclusion.

 

Specify clearly in which part of the conclusions the achievement of the objective is hold and where you proves or refutes your hypotheses.

Dear reviewer

We adjusted the narrative style of the manuscript to strengthen the textual narrative that confirms the hypothesis.

 

The original contribution of the document is specified only to the calculation of the statistical estimators of goodness of fit to the experiment? Or did the authors create some multiple fit model to the data shown? For example a linear model for prediction purposes.

Dear reviewer

We added Section 4.5 to introduce the concept of predictive models.

 

 

Dear Reviewer

 

We greatly appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and we believe the manuscript has been substantially improved.

We look forward to the approval of the reviewers for the revised manuscript and wish all the best.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article raises important issues. Its added value is a reference to current problems. For the benefit of the quality of work it would be worth considering the following issues to be done:

1) in the abstract, in addition to the goal, mention the research gap

2) rows 56-60 - smart city refers mainly to the quality of life of the city's inhabitants, therefore the base for building city according to the smart city concept are people. Technology itself and technological solutions play only a supportive role.

3) row 130 "feeling s of" - please correct

4) rows 155-157 It is worth showing the close connection between the research gap and the analyzed literature. That is, to show that no research of this type has been carried out so far

5) why some of the parts of the article are marked in red?

6) rows 613-617 smaller font

Author Response

Review 2

1) in the abstract, in addition to the goal, mention the research gap3

Dear reviewer

Based on your suggestion, the summary has been adjusted.

2) rows 56-60 - smart city refers mainly to the quality of life of the city's inhabitants, therefore the base for building city according to the smart city concept are people. Technology itself and technological solutions play only a supportive role.

Dear reviewer

We supplement this note. Line 62-64.

3) row 130 "feeling s of" - please correct

Dear reviewer

We have corrected the misspelled word.

4) rows 155-157 It is worth showing the close connection between the research gap and the analyzed literature. That is, to show that no research of this type has been carried out so far

Dear reviewer

We supplement this note. Line 143-144.

 

5) why some of the parts of the article are marked in red?

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your reminder. The first hand font is our English proofreading callout, and we have revised related issues. Our proofreading content is also distinguished by color.

6) rows 613-617 smaller font

Dear reviewer

We unified the text layout. Line 613-617-

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The purpose of this study is to explore, after the epidemic, intelligent traffic management system is the key to creating a green leisure tourism environment and moving towards sustainable urban development. First, quantitative research, snowballing, and convenience sampling methods were used to analyze 750 questionnaires using a basic statistical test, t-test, ANOVA test, and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) method. Qualitative research and semi-structured interview method were used to collect the opinions of 6 experts on the data results. Finally, it was discussed with the multivariate inspection method.

Author Response

Review 3

Extensive editing of English language and style required

Dear reviewer

Style and writing style, we have entrusted relevant objects to assist in correcting and revising related errors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the standards of the journal, the citations should be numbered in increasing order and named only once in the content of the text. This is not reflected in the proposal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your suggestions and reminders. The manuscript has rechecked the order of citations and replaced duplicates (References-64).
We believe this manuscript has been substantially improved.
We thank you again for your willingness to dedicate your time to assist in the completion of the manuscript.