Quantifying Road Transport Resilience to Emergencies: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The literature review section lacks specificity and fails to convey the overall development trend of the field and the importance of this study. The author should provide a detailed analysis of relevant literature, describe the field's overall development trend, emphasize the necessity of this study, differentiate it from previous research, and underscore its value and significance.

2. The material list in Part 3 is not clear enough, as it only indicates the source of the data but not which data was used. The author is advised to clearly specify which data was used in the material list. If it affects the overall structure of the paper, the author can list the names of the datasets, data sources, and data volumes in the appendix, or provide data documents or links for readers to better understand the research data source and usage.

3. To improve the quality of the paper, the author should enhance the information content of the images. For instance, fig. 4 contains four images that are alike in content. The author should consider grouping images of the same system in the same coordinate system, using colors, shapes, or other methods to differentiate them. In addition, the images should be made more informative to improve readers' understanding of the data and trends.

4. To improve the paper, the author should introduce the method used, compare it with existing methods, and highlight its novelty and innovative points. Additionally, the author should emphasize the scientific problems and explain how this study method can address them, thereby demonstrating the necessity and significance of the research.

5. The discussion section lacks sufficient support from previous calculations and analysis results and contains numerous unverified subjective conclusions. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the policy conclusion of 5.2, "large-scale and high-intensity lockdown measures should be cautious and avoided" from the perspective of road transportation, is questionable. Regarding the conclusion of 5.2, the author should provide further explanation and evidence demonstrating its sufficiency, and consider other factors that may affect its reliability and persuasiveness.

 

6. The conclusion section's selection of cities is not comprehensive, resulting in insufficient support for the conclusions drawn for each city. The comparability between the cities mentioned in the paper is also in question. To address this issue, the author should provide a basis and explanation for the selection of cities. In the research methods and experimental design section, the author can explain the reasons for selecting the cities, their characteristics, and data sources, to ensure the rationality and reliability of the city selection. The author should also explain the similarities and differences between the cities, and whether there are significant differences, to avoid improper comparison of the conclusions drawn for different cities.

The quality of English can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General evaluation of the article:

·         Title: Suitable

·         Keywords: Suitable

·         Abstract: Suitable.

·         Itemization: Correct

·         Text: clear and objective

·         Bibliographic research: good quality, objective and related to the article theme

·         Conclusions: Consistent with the content. Item indicates limitations to the locations studied.

·         Interesting and timely studies, although restricted to macro analyzes.

Specific Comments:

·         The text aroused several doubts:

a.    Explain what it means: Vof mn;rs line 292.

b.    In the introduction explain better the relationship between transport resilience and sustainability.

c.    Please explain in annex the calculations of the 1st line of table 1.

·         Non-Chinese readers would be interested in providing some general information:

a.    In the peak moments of the epidemic, did the Government suggest that people stay at home, as in other European countries?

b.    What was the reduction of economic activities during the times of the epidemic in the studied regions? Level of economic activity and transport are directly related and interdependent parameters. If people stay at home instead of going to work, the volume of passengers transported drops and the volume of home deliveries increases. Comment on what happened in the regions studied.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with an interesting topic and provides beneficial content. However, revising it to clarify its message and resolve existing ambiguities seems necessary.

1- The content of the abstract is incomplete in terms of providing the theoretical framework/conceptual model, methodological details, interpretation of the results, and possible solutions.

2- Section 2-3, as the limitations of existing studies, must be moved to the last part of the introduction (without assigning a separate title) and should be used to explain the research problem/gap and, consequently, the research contribution. In addition, devote the last paragraph of the introduction to introduce the article’s structure to the reader.

3- The literature review should present a theoretical framework/conceptual model regarding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on transportation and the quantification method for its resilience. This framework/model is the outcome of the theoretical part of the study and specifies the path of the empirical part through the methodology.

4- The study should clarify its definition and conception of transportation to the reader. Some analyses have been reduced to the roads based on the volume of passengers and goods. Note that the modes of transportation are critical concerning the resilience of transportation in pandemic conditions (such as Covid-19).

5- I suggest integrating the discussion and conclusion sections to provide a more robust conclusion. In addition, it is necessary to highlight the research contribution concerning the research problem/gap explained at the beginning by discussing and interpreting the findings in comparison with other related studies.

-

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Thank you for your comments. 

Please see the attachment, which provide a  point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript presents an integrated resilience measure for measuring the resilience of road transport to emergencies according to the process of change. The article is very well organized. The contribution of the manuscript to the literature is clearly highlighted. The experimental studies and findings are presented in an understandable way.

-  In the "4.1. Road transport at the national level" section, it would be better for the organization of the manuscript to make a few sentences of introduction before moving on to the "4.1.1 Analysis of the COVID-19 epidemic period" section.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Thank you for your comments. 

please see the attachment, which provide a  point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Manuscript ID-Sustainability-2507659

In this manuscript (MS) by Xue Zhang et al., This MS study focuses on the advancement of sustainable road transportation. This paper proposes an integrated resilience metric for quantifying the resilience of road transportation to catastrophes based on its change process. Using COVID-19 as an example, the robustness of several road transport indicators was evaluated across regions and epidemic waves. Furthermore, the epidemic has a greater detrimental impact on road passenger transport than freight transport, varying effects of epidemic prevention and control efforts in different provinces/cities, and road transport resilience varies throughout epidemic waves. This is an interesting study and good finding.

Based on this discovery, the strategy can be implemented to improve the resilience of road transportation.  The authors, in my opinion, should expound on their findings in the abstract. Following minor modifications, the manuscript may be published. The following suggestions should be addressed in the amended MS.

Comments and Suggestions

1.      Introduction section: In my perspective, authors should state or clarify briefly the distinction between the four levels of Endemic, Pandemic, Epidemic, and Outbreak.

2.      Methodology: The equations must be inserted in editable format from the equation editor using the function of “Equation” in Word program. “Type equation here.”

3.      Content: Please double-check the missing scientific equation citations (1) to (7). It must be included in the material.

4.      Content: Please double-check the full stop following the last sentence.

5.      4.2.1: Analysis in horizontal, As the author stated…Second, they are all heavily affected by the epidemic (line 443-444).” Do you have any references or statistics? Could you please elaborate?

6.      Table 3: Each column shows different significant digit number, please reconsider.

7.      4.2.2: Analysis in vertical, how do you test for reproducibility? The sample size is insufficient.

8.      Figure 4: It is hard to understand for X axis. please reconsider.

9.      Table 4: Each column shows different significant digit number, please reconsider.

10.   Figure 6: I can't seem to find photos (b) and (d); they're missing.

11.   Figure 8: (a), Why were the results of Shanghai higher than those of Xinjiang, but the findings of Figure 8(b) appear to show that Xinjian was higher than Shanghai? Do the authors need to explain why?

12.   Discussion: When does the Spring Festival take place? Please be specific.

13.   Conclusion (line 619-620): Authors mentioned Hunan showed the most increased resilience in passenger turnover, which may be mainly due to the geographical locations of provinces/cities and epidemic prevention and control measures taken. How does Hunan vary from other provinces in terms of geographical location and epidemic prevention and control measures?

14.   All references mentioned in the reference list are cited in the texts, and vice versa.

15.   Please ensure that all tables and figures are mentioned in the texts and in numerical order.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Thank you for your comments. 

Please see the attachment, which provide a  point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your work on the article. The revisions made have greatly improved its quality. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed. 

 

Firstly, the review section appears to lack substantial changes. We suggest that in future revisions, you consider summarizing and categorizing a specific type of research rather than describing individual studies conducted by different scholars. This approach would better demonstrate the interrelatedness and progression of the research field.

 

Secondly, there are still some subjective judgments in the conclusion section that have not been validated. We encourage you to prioritize providing evidence-based support for every judgment made in an academic article.

 

Overall, I appreciate your efforts in enhancing the article, and I believe that addressing these suggestions will further enhance its quality and impact.

There are instances where sentence structure and word choice could be improved to enhance readability and coherence. I suggest thoroughly proofreading the manuscript to enhance the overall flow of the text.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions. Please see the attachment for detailed revisions, which point by point response to the reviewer’s comments. Your suggestions make the paper constantly improved, thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Following the authors' responses and explanations and comparing the new and previous manuscript versions, it can be observed that most concerns have been addressed. Accordingly, the article's message is now clear.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and comments.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your manuscript and for your interest in our journal. I have carefully reviewed your submission and have thoroughly considered your arguments. 

However, after careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that I have decided to recommend the rejection of your manuscript. My primary concern is the lack of novelty and overall scientific contribution in your work. While I appreciate the effort you put into conducting your research, it falls short of making a significant impact in the field. 

I understand that this decision may be disappointing, but please keep in mind that the review process aims to ensure the publication of high-quality and impactful research. I encourage you to consider the feedback provided and explore opportunities to enhance the novelty and scientific contribution of your work. 

No further comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments. 

We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf