Evaluation Methods and Optimization Strategies for Low-Carbon-Oriented Urban Road Network Structures: A Case Study of Shanghai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Firstly, the author puts forward the evaluation and optimization measures of the urban road network structure oriented by low-carbon. However, in the actual research, the embodiment of "low-carbon" is not clear enough.

2. Taking Shanghai as an example, the paper explains the evaluation method and calculation process. But how universal is this approach? Is it applicable to other cities or regions? Does it have international significance?

3. The discussion part is not deep enough. It lacks comparison with existing studies.

4. Table 1 contains Chinese words.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on my submission. I have revised and improved my article based on your comments. Please find below my responses to each of your suggestions.

Point 1: Firstly, the author puts forward the evaluation and optimization measures of the urban road network structure oriented by low-carbon. However, in the actual research, the embodiment of "low-carbon" is not clear enough.

Response 1: The main objective of this study is to promote the development of bus transits by optimizing the urban road network structure, as bus transit has advantages over private cars in terms of spatial resource utilization and energy consumption, thus contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions in the related communities. In this revision, the introduction section has been strengthened to explain the above logic more explicitly. Additionally, the conclusion section further discusses how the optimization of the road network structure can directly or indirectly promote the development of low-carbon communities.

Point 2: Taking Shanghai as an example, the paper explains the evaluation method and calculation process. But how universal is this approach? Is it applicable to other cities or regions? Does it have international significance?

Response 2: This study has broad applicability to highly dense urban areas with population agglomerations, where the optimization of the road network structure has a significant impact on low-carbon development. However, its applicability to suburban areas, small cities, and rural areas is relatively limited. Therefore, when selecting the research scope in Shanghai, the study was limited to the central urban area with a higher population density, excluding the vast suburbs. In this revised version, the conclusion section has been supplemented to explain the above relevant content.

Point 3: The discussion part is not deep enough. It lacks comparison with existing studies.

Response 3: This version has made significant revisions to the conclusion section, strengthening the interpretation and discussion of the results based on the research findings.

Point 4: Table 1 contains Chinese words.

Response 4: This revision has removed the Chinese words from the figures.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the review article is interesting and significant. However authors may improve the articles through revieing the following areas.

1. The authors should go through the full manuscript and check the grammatical mistakes and Spelling mistakes.
2. Authors should briefly describe about the study areas.
3. Conclusion should be rewritten.

As per the jounals guideline authors should recheck all the sections of the articles.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on my submission. I have revised and improved my article based on your comments. Please find below my responses to each of your suggestions.

Point 1: The authors should go through the full manuscript and check the grammatical mistakes and Spelling mistakes.

Response 1: I have already used the English editing service recommended by the editor and had the entire document checked for English language errors.

Point 2: Authors should briefly describe about the study areas.

Response 2: This revision has revised the Introduction.

Point 3: Conclusion should be rewritten.

Response 3: This version has made significant revisions to the conclusion section, strengthening the interpretation and discussion of the results based on the research findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

see the file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on my submission. I have revised and improved my article based on your comments. Please find below my responses to each of your suggestions.

Point 1: I suggest a more detailed title to improve the impact of the scope.

Response 1: The title has been revised by adding the words "Methods" and "Strategies" to more accurately describe the research content. The new title is: Evaluation Methods and Optimization Strategies for Low-carbon-oriented Urban Road Network Structure: A Case Study of Shanghai.

Point 2: Please give more information about the results in the abstract and reduce the information about methodology.

Response 2: The abstract has been revised with the addition of analysis results and a reduction of methodology.

Point 3: The conducted literature survey in the introduction is not thorough. Please update and expand your literature survey by referring to the most recent and relevant references that introduce the problem. Please for the first part of introduction include general study to underline the importance of environmental analysis by using (https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093462, https://doi.org/10.3390/su1211452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133269, https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89494. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/70874, doi:10.3390/en13184603 ).

Response 3: I have read the literature you recommended and cited several articles. In the introduction of my article, I underscored the crucial role of environmental coordination in advancing the growth of low-carbon communities.

Point 4: The author provides to English review.

Response 4: I have already used the English editing service recommended by the editor and had the entire document checked for English language errors.

Point 5: Please add the nomenclature.

Response 5: The approach taken in this paper is to provide detailed explanations of each parameter in the formula introduction section, so there is no need to repeat the nomenclature list at the end of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is interesting and generally, it deserves to be published with some revisions that are suggested below:

1.     In section 2 ( Evaluation Method Based on Quantitative Research of Road Network Topological Structure), do you use ArcGIS's topology check tool, set topology rules, check the road data for errors, and verify the topology again after modification to obtain a complete and usable road network topology, if so, please state it?

2.     In section 4( Discussion on the Optimization Strategy of Low-carbon Oriented Urban Road Network Structure)do you have any pieces of evidence to support, for example, section 4.1 Formulating Strategies for Low-carbon Development of Transportation According to Local Conditions,?

3.     In section 4.2( Focusing on the Key Role of Intersection Form in Optimization Topology) could you please explain what is the Key Role of Intersection Form in Optimization Topology?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on my submission. I have revised and improved my article based on your comments. Please find below my responses to each of your suggestions.

Point 1: In section 2 (Evaluation Method Based on Quantitative Research of Road Network Topological Structure), do you use ArcGIS's topology check tool, set topology rules, check the road data for errors, and verify the topology again after modification to obtain a complete and usable road network topology, if so, please state it?

Response 1: Yes, I used the topology check tool in ArcGIS to check and edit the road network data. Relevant explanations were added during this revision.

Point 2: In section 4(Discussion on the Optimization Strategy of Low-carbon Oriented Urban Road Network Structure)do you have any pieces of evidence to support, for example, section 4.1 Formulating Strategies for Low-carbon Development of Transportation According to Local Conditions,?

Response 2: The strategies proposed in this study are mostly based on the analysis methods and results. For example, as stated in Section 4.1, the strategy and evaluation methods tailored to the local conditions are related to the value comparison analysis matrix. That is, the optimization strategy for the road network structure in a specific region should be correlated with the region's location, population density, employment density, and other factors. In this revision, relevant explanations have been added in Section 4.

Point 3: In section 4.2(Focusing on the Key Role of Intersection Form in Optimization Topology) could you please explain what is the Key Role of Intersection Form in Optimization Topology?

Response 3: The form of intersections has a significant impact on the topological structure of the road network, and too many irregular intersections have a significant negative effect on the overall efficiency of the community road network. Relevant comparisons and explanations have been added in section 4.2 during this revision.

Reviewer 5 Report

Due to traffic jams in almost all large cities in China and other countries, the subject of the study is very interesting and needed. However, it is worth making a few corrections in the text to improve it.

In the title and in the content there is the phrase "Low-carbon Urban Road Network Structure". It is rather about low-emission trensport (means of transport) and not about roads.

The author uses the term "normal bus transit". It's unclear. Does this mean that in addition to normal there is also abnormal?

In the text, the terms "bus transport" and "public transport" are used interchangeably. This is not the same. Public transport is wider and includes, in addition to buses, e.g. trams, metro, trains, etc.

How does the author understand the concept of topology here? This is a complicated mathematical concept and it is advisable to discuss/explain it here.

The word "topology" is used throughout the text. How does the author understand this concept? This is generally a complicated mathematical concept and it is advisable to discuss/explain it here as it raises some doubts.

The author refers to the names of numerous districts, but these names are not on the maps. I suggest to improve it.

The title of the article and the purpose indicated at the beginning mention the optimization of bus transport. With regard to optimization, there are only very general things and statements that are based on research results to a very small extent - they could be formulated without this research. Reading the purpose of the article, I expected something more.

There are no concrete conclusions from the research in "Conclusion".

Does this research have any limitations??? I feel like you should write something about them...

These and other remarks have been included in the text as comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on my submission. I have revised and improved my article based on your comments. Please find below my responses to each of your suggestions.

Point 1: In the title and in the content there is the phrase "Low-carbon Urban Road Network Structure". It is rather about low-emission trensport (means of transport) and not about roads.

Response 1: The title has been slightly adjusted in this revision. The object of this study is the low-carbon-oriented road network structure. The construction conditions of the road network will affect the efficiency of transportation and also have an impact on the suitability of specific transportation modes (such as bus transits). Therefore, the low-carbon-oriented road network structure corresponds to the bus-transit-friendly road network structure in this paper.

Point 2: The author uses the term "normal bus transit". It's unclear. Does this mean that in addition to normal there is also abnormal?

Response 2: The normal bus transits referred to in this article refers to buses, excluding bus rapid transit (BRT) with exclusive right of way and tramways that can only travel on tracks. To avoid misunderstandings, this revision added a definition of bus transits in the introduction section. Moreover, the term "normal bus" was avoided throughout the text and replaced with "bus transits" for consistency.

Point 3: In the text, the terms "bus transport" and "public transport" are used interchangeably. This is not the same. Public transport is wider and includes, in addition to buses, e.g. trams, metro, trains, etc.

Response 3: This version is revised uniformly to 'bus transits'.

Point 4: The word "topology" is used throughout the text. How does the author understand this concept? This is generally a complicated mathematical concept and it is advisable to discuss/explain it here as it raises some doubts.

Response 4: In this modification, the content about error checking of road network data topology is added in Section 2.2. Introduce readers to the data topology issues that need to be focused on in this research by means of diagrams.

Point 5: The author refers to the names of numerous districts, but these names are not on the maps. I suggest to improve it.

Response 5: Location names have been added to the relevant maps.

Point 6: The title of the article and the purpose indicated at the beginning mention the optimization of bus transport. With regard to optimization, there are only very general things and statements that are based on research results to a very small extent - they could be formulated without this research. Reading the purpose of the article, I expected something more.

Response 6: The optimization target of this study is the urban road network structure, which promotes the development of bus transits through the optimization of road network structure. In this revision, the expression of this logical relationship has been strengthened in the introduction, conclusion and other parts.

Point 7: There are no concrete conclusions from the research in "Conclusion".

Response 7: This version has made significant revisions to the conclusion section, strengthening the interpretation and discussion of the results based on the research findings.

Point 8: Does this research have any limitations??? I feel like you should write something about them...

Response 8: This study has limitations. In this revision, relevant explanations have been added in the conclusion section.

Point 9:These and other remarks have been included in the text as comments.

Response 9: The revision has been made according to your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has fully revised the article.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback on my article.

Reviewer 3 Report

accepted

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback on my article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for your attention to revising the article so that will be easy to understand for the reader.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback on my article.