Integrating DEA and AHP for Optimizing Rural Road Network Planning Under the Common Prosperity Framework: A Case Study of Yueqing City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper give a decision making method for rural road network layout under the common prosperity framework, considering the integrated DEA and AHP.

This paper seems to belong to the field of social science research rather than science or engineering. To be honesty, some conclusions seem to lack sufficient theoretical evidence.

 

1. This paper did not give a clear description about how to get the results , such as in table 1, how to calculated the co2 emissions?  How to get the curvature coefficient, why scheme 1 this coefficient is 1.8 and and in others is 1.7 and 1.6 ? there were no clear reasons to show the process for getting these results. If this data came from some history records, please indicate it. But this was the different scheme results, i think these data should be calculated by the authors, so please show how to calculate and the how to obtain these results.

This paper seems belong a

2. The Eq(1), how this equation was derived？ Is there any basis for it? Does it come from references , or it was just created by the authors? Please state clearly about this eq.(1)
3. In line 263, missing something . please check this line.
4. Line 333, some typing errors in this line.
5. The parameter “n”Appeared many times with different meaning, such as , in eq.12, it was matrix dimension, but in eq.1 it was the number of townships. In eq.2, eq.5 and eq.7, it was the index of parameters. The authors should change this ,one letter should only stand for one meaning.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

Your paper presents a valuable contribution to transportation planning literature by integrating DEA and AHP methodologies to optimize rural road network planning under the common prosperity framework. The approach effectively balances efficiency considerations with social equity goals, which is particularly relevant in the context of regional development. However, several aspects of the manuscript could be strengthened to enhance its impact and clarity.

 

Title and Abstract

The current title adequately describes the research but could be more specific. Consider: "Integrating Data Envelopment Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process for Optimizing Rural Road Network Planning under China's Common Prosperity Framework: A Case Study of Yueqing City"

 

The abstract effectively outlines the purpose and methodology but is structured as a continuous paragraph. Consider restructuring it into clearly delineated sections (Purpose, Methodology, Results, Theoretical contribution, Practical implications) to enhance readability and impact.

 

Introduction and Literature Review

Strengths:

• Clear establishment of common prosperity framework and transportation's role
• Comprehensive review of relevant literature on DEA and AHP applications

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Formulate explicit research questions/objectives at the end of the introduction to guide readers
2. Strengthen the critical analysis of cited works rather than simply summarizing them
3. More clearly articulate the theoretical gap that your research addresses
4. Improve the transition between literature review and methodology sections by explaining how identified research gaps inform your methodological choices

Methodology

Strengths:

• Detailed explanation of DEA and AHP integration
• Logical selection of input and output indicators

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Provide more explicit justification for the selection of input and output indicators
2. Explain the data collection process in greater detail, including how values for the nine planning schemes were determined
3. Clarify the sentence in Section 3.3.1: "The economic meaning of the model is to solve for a set of weights vi and ur such that under the condition that the efficiency expressions hj for all evaluated DMUs satisfy, the efficiency of the evaluated DMU j0 is maximized." This sentence is incomplete.
4. Section 3.2 uses ellipses inappropriately in formal academic writing: "By employing the input-output framework... Input indicators center on resource investment." Please revise for proper academic style.
5. Include information on how the Gini coefficient calculation accurately reflects regional equity
6. Describe the validation process for the AHP judgment matrices

 

Results and Analysis

Strengths:

• Clear presentation of DEA and AHP results in tables
• Logical explanation of which schemes perform better

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Add visual representations of the different planning schemes to enhance reader understanding
2. Conduct and report sensitivity analysis of model parameters to demonstrate robustness
3. Provide more thorough explanation of why Alternative 2 performs best across multiple criteria
4. Add a dedicated discussion section that addresses:
• Theoretical implications for transportation planning
• Practical challenges in implementing the optimal scheme
• Comparison with similar studies in different contexts
• Limitations of the study and their impact on the interpretation of results

 

Conclusion

Strengths:

• Summary of key methodological contributions
• Recognition of common prosperity-oriented planning benefits

Suggestions for improvement:

1. More explicitly connect findings back to the research questions/objectives stated in the introduction
2. Provide more specific recommendations for future research directions
3. Acknowledge the limitations of the static analysis approach more thoroughly
4. Discuss the broader implications of your findings for transportation planning theory
5. Articulate more clearly how your integrated approach advances the theoretical understanding of common prosperity

 

References and Citations

Strengths:

• Relevant sources covering theoretical concepts and methodological approaches
• Consistent citation formatting

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Increase the proportion of references from the past five years (currently about 43%)

 

Language and Presentation

The manuscript would benefit from careful English language editing to improve clarity and readability. Some specific issues to address:

1. Many sentences are unnecessarily complex and could be simplified, particularly when explaining mathematical concepts
2. The abstract contains an overly long sentence that should be divided: "Given the critical role of transportation in advancing common prosperity and the limitations of existing decision-making studies on rural road network planning, this study focuses on developing a decision-making method for road network layout under the common prosperity framework."
3. Several figures (particularly Figure 1 and Figure 3) have labels that are difficult to read due to image resolution issues
4. Technical terminology (e.g., "slack variables," "DEA-efficient") is sometimes used without adequate explanation for readers less familiar with these analytical methods

Overall, your paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of transportation planning within the context of regional development and social equity considerations. Addressing these suggestions would further strengthen its impact and readability for both academic and practitioner audiences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper contains instances of overly complex sentences, unclear phrasing, and stylistic issues that occasionally obscure the intended meaning. 

Specific Areas for Improvement

1. Sentence Structure and Length

Several sentences in the manuscript are excessively long and complex, making them difficult to follow. For example:

In the abstract: "Given the critical role of transportation in advancing common prosperity and the limitations of existing decision-making studies on rural road network planning, this study focuses on developing a decision-making method for road network layout under the common prosperity framework."

Suggestion: Divide into two sentences: "Transportation plays a critical role in advancing common prosperity. Given the limitations of existing decision-making studies on rural road network planning, this study focuses on developing a method for road network layout under the common prosperity framework."

2. Technical Language and Accessibility

The paper sometimes uses technical terminology without sufficient explanation:

Terms like "slack variables," "DEA-efficient," and "pairwise comparison matrices" appear without adequate definition for readers who may be less familiar with these methodologies.

Suggestion: Provide brief explanations when introducing specialized terms, or include a glossary of key technical terms.

3. Academic Writing Style

Several instances of informal or inappropriate academic style were noted:

In Section 3.2: "By employing the input-output framework of the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, this study further refines specific input and output indicators to quantitatively evaluate the rationality and effectiveness of the planning layout.... Input indicators center on resource investment and existing constraints, including:"

Suggestion: Avoid using ellipses (....) in formal academic writing. Instead, use appropriate transitional phrases: "By employing the input-output framework of the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, this study further refines specific input and output indicators to quantitatively evaluate the rationality and effectiveness of the planning layout. The input indicators center on resource investment and existing constraints, including:"

4. Clarity and Precision

Some passages lack precision in expressing concepts:

"At the policy level, this study introduces key evaluation indicators such as the Gini coefficient and industrial coverage rate, emphasizing that highway network planning should move beyond mere cost minimization to focus on regional equity and sustainable development."

Suggestion: Be more specific about how these indicators relate to policy: "This study introduces key evaluation indicators—specifically the Gini coefficient for measuring distribution equity and the industrial coverage rate for economic connectivity—to guide policymakers in moving highway network planning beyond cost minimization toward regional equity and sustainable development."

5. Consistency in Terminology

The paper occasionally uses different terms to refer to the same concept, which can confuse readers:

The terms "common prosperity-oriented planning," "common prosperity layout," and "common prosperity scheme" appear to be used interchangeably.

Suggestion: Choose one primary term and use it consistently throughout the manuscript, or clearly define the distinctions if they represent different concepts.

Recommendations for Improvement

Consider professional English editing services to refine the language throughout the manuscript.

Review all complex sentences and divide them into shorter, clearer statements.

Ensure that all technical terminology is adequately explained for readers outside the immediate field.

Maintain consistent academic style throughout the paper, avoiding informal expressions or punctuation.

Pay particular attention to the clarity of the methodology section, where precise language is especially important.

Use more active voice and direct phrasing to improve readability.

These language improvements will significantly enhance the accessibility and impact of your research, allowing readers to better appreciate the valuable methodological contribution and practical implications of your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Variables in some equations could be better defined rather than relying on going to the references to find the definitions of the variables in the formulae.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a hybrid decision-making framework that integrates Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate rural highway network planning alternatives under the strategic goal of common prosperity. The approach is methodologically sound and aligns well with current policy goals emphasizing inclusive development. Overall, the paper presents a promising decision framework and contributes to sustainable infrastructure planning. Before publication, I think the authors need to address the following questions:

1. Page 6, line 244. ‘.. of township iii’. I think this is an output from Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT). The authors should be cautious about the output and remove the extra ‘i’ in the content.
2. Page 6, line 244. The authors should add ‘xj is for per capita road mileage for township j’.
3. Page 11, Table 1. I think the Category and Scheme do not match. Scheme 1, 2, and 3 emphasizes the common 383 prosperity-oriented approach, but in the table, they belong to ‘Traditional’.
4. While the discussion in lines 398–421 interprets slack variables s2 and s3 in qualitative terms, the paper does not explicitly define what each of the slack variables s1 to s4 represents in terms of the actual input or output indicators. To improve clarity and interpretability of Table 2, I recommend the authors provide a clear mapping between each slack variable and its corresponding planning metric (e.g., construction cost, industrial coverage, Gini coefficient, CO₂ emissions).
5. The manuscript currently lacks a dedicated Discussion section. While the DEA and AHP results are presented and briefly interpreted, the paper would benefit from a clearer separation and expansion of a Discussion section that addresses the implications of the findings, limitations of the DEA (though briefly mentioned in Conclusion) and AHP approaches (e.g., static assumptions, unverified weights), the roles of slack variables, and how the proposed method aligns with or diverges from existing studies or policy frameworks. This would enhance the manuscript’s scientific rigor and practical relevance.
6. In Section 4.2, page 12 line 423, the authors refer to judgment matrices S₁–M and S₂–M, but do not explicitly define what ‘M’ refers to. For clarity, the authors need to state what measure indicators are represented by M under each criterion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract part, the author refers to scheme 2 without providing its specific name or meaning. I suggest the author adding either the scheme’s name or a brief description of its content . Because the reader can not fully understand the  scheme 2 without reading the full content.
2. Some variables should be wrote by the italictype, such as in  Line 292,344 , please check the full text.
3. in line 371, the typing error about W_klm, it should be W _Klj
4. Reference 9, no page , volume.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the abstract part, the author refers to scheme 2 without providing its specific name or meaning. I suggest the author adding either the scheme’s name or a brief description of its content . Because the reader can not fully understand the  scheme 2 without reading the full content.

Response 1:Thank you for your valuable and precise comments.We have revised the abstract to introduce Scheme 2 as the “commonprosperityoriented Scheme 2”, noting that it emphasizes full industrial coverage and balanced equity. This brief description now makes Scheme 2’s key characteristics clear without requiring readers to consult the full text.The revised original text is as follows:

Applying the model to the case of Yueqing City, Zhejiang Province, the findings reveal that common prosperity-oriented schemes, particularly the Scheme, which emphasizes full industrial coverage and balanced equity, achieve a superior balance among construction cost, industrial coverage, regional equity, and carbon emissions.

 

Comments 2: Some variables should be written in italic type, such as in lines 292 and 344; please check the full text.

Response 2:We appreciate you flagging the inconsistent formatting. We conducted a comprehensive check of the manuscript and ensured that all mathematical symbols and variable names are now consistently set in italics throughout, including the instances on lines 292 and 344.All the symbols that have been checked and modified have been marked in red at the original text.

 

Comments 3: in line 371, the typing error about Wklm, it should be WKlj

Response 3:Thank you for catching this mistake. We have corrected this notation: “Wklm” is now properly rendered as “WKlj” to match the rest of the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Reference 9, no page , volume.

Response 4:We appreciate your attention to detail.Reference 9 has been updated to include the full citation:

1. Qi, F. Research on Comprehensive Transportation Channel Layout Model Based on Main Component Analysis. Journal of Highway Transportation Research and Development, 2011, 28(1), 154–8.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good

Author Response

Thank you for your positive evaluation. We appreciate your encouragement and will continue refining the manuscript to ensure its clarity and impact.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my questions propertly. I have no furthur questions. 

Author Response

Thank you for confirming that your concerns have been addressed. We appreciate your time and constructive feedback throughout the review process.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The numbering format for 3.3.2 section is incorrect, within this section, the numbering formatwas "1. Designing XXX", "2. Constructing"， the "1" ,"2", “3” and "4" is the first level of the numbering format. 
2. There are still some variables not wrote by italic type, such as in line 276, please check the full text again.

Author Response

Response 1：

Thank you for pointing out the numbering inconsistency in Section 3.3.2. We have revised the subsection headings so that “Designing …”, “Constructing …”, etc., now appear as 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.3, and 3.3.2.4, in accordance with the journal’s hierarchical numbering format. This change ensures a clear and consistent structure throughout the section.

Comments 2:There are still some variables not wrote by italic type, such as in line 276, please check the full text again.

Response 2：

Thank you for catching this remaining formatting issue. We have performed another careful pass through the entire manuscript and ensured that all variable names—including those on line 276—are now consistently set in italic type. All the modifications have been marked in red in the original text.We appreciate your patience and diligence in helping us achieve typographical accuracy.