Improving the Transport and Logistic Infrastructure of a City Using the Graph Theory Method: The Case of Astana, Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell written manuscript with coherent English and moderate presentation. The authors aimed to evaluate traffic logistics in the city of Astana – the capital of Kazakhstan. They have used validated methodology, conducted careful literature review and provided sufficient introduction. Although the article would contribute to the existing literature, its usefulness would be very limited because of pre definite location. The article would be suitable for publication if authors could address following issues:
1. The article lacks references. The authors should provide relevant references expressed in the lines: 39, 47, 95-115, 695-712. Those thought are not the authors’ one. This should be improved.
2. Structure of the manuscript. Limitations expressed in lines 713-729 should be placed in the Discussion section, before Conclusions. Figure 4 is not appropriate in the discussion section. This should be placed in the Results section.
3. Table 1 – this is horror from the viewpoint of the reader. This table should be converted to the “heat map” of Astana. In this form the presented data are only scientific number and do not provide overview of the AVP distribution in the certain geographical districts of the Astana.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The data source only mentions the National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The specific time range of data collection should be described in detail to avoid the impact of data changes in different time periods on the timeliness and accuracy of the research results.
- Some terms are inconsistent (for example, "meso - districts" and "meso - regions" are used interchangeably).
- There are many charts and graphs in the article, and the labels of some of them are not clear enough. Specific explanations should be provided below them to facilitate readers' understanding.
- When introducing the 14 indicators in Section 3, the specific criteria and basis for screening these indicators should be explained in detail, along with how they comprehensively reflect the performance of TLI.
- Abbreviations such as "NBIO" in Table A.1 are not clearly defined in the main text. The abbreviation annotations should be improved.
- In the literature review section, research findings on different topics should be integrated and classified，And some of the literature is too outdated. Please update the references with recent papers, evaluation on the development of urban low-carbon passenger transportation structure in tianjin.
- In the article, only "expert evaluation" and "sample data" are mentioned. It is necessary to explain the expert evaluation process, evaluation criteria, and sample selection method.
- The limitations of the research are not mentioned in the conclusion. Relevant discussions should be added, and subsequent research plans should be clarified.
Author Response
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [The data source only mentions the National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The specific time range of data collection should be described in detail to avoid the impact of data changes in different time periods on the timeliness and accuracy of the research results]
Answer 1: Yes, you are right! We used average values ​​for the last three years to avoid any sharp fluctuations.
In the text of the article, in the section "Methodology and data", the following was added:
"Data was collected for the specified 14 indicators according to statistical data of the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (BNS RK) for the period 2021-2023, which gives a more stable picture, allowing us to take into account short-term trends and avoid sharp fluctuations" (see change in text in lines 347-350 and 365-368).
Comments 2: Some terms are inconsistent (for example, "meso - districts" and "meso - regions" are used interchangeably).
Response 2: Agreed. We have made corrections accordingly.
The terms "meso-districts" and "meso-regions" are not quite interchangeable, although both refer to the middle (meso-) level of territorial division.
In the context of our work, "meso-districts" is a more correct term, since we are talking about parts of the city. In this regard, we have corrected the text, leaving only the term - "meso-districts".
Comments 3: There are many charts and graphs in the article, and the labels of some of them are not clear enough. Specific explanations should be provided below them to facilitate readers' understanding.
Response 3: We agree. We have accordingly given explanations in the following tables and figures in the text: Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.6
Comments 4: When introducing the 14 indicators in Section 3, the specific criteria and basis for screening these indicators should be explained in detail, along with how they comprehensively reflect the performance of TLI.
Response 4: We agree with you and give the following explanation on this issue. The criteria were selected by studying and summarizing the specified literary sources. But at the same time, we took into account the features of meso-districts as part of the city. To divide the urban area into meso-districts, the method of functional zoning was used (by type of development and use of territories). Since we studied the development of transport and logistics infrastructure and its impact on the quality of the urban environment and accessibility, the following criteria were used as analytics: transport, socio-economic and environmental factors. The specified clarification and addition to the text are reflected on lines 370-377, 424-428, 439-448.
Comments 5: Abbreviations such as "NBIO" in Table A.1 are not clearly defined in the main text. The abbreviation annotations should be improved.
Response 5: Your comments are absolutely correct. We have taken them into account in our work.
The abbreviation NBIO in Table A.1 gives the number of infrastructure objects sampled (E-economic, S-social, I-institutional, ECO-ecological) for each meso-district. The text provided clarification (see lines 439-455).
Comments 6: In the literature review section, research findings on different topics should be integrated and classified，And some of the literature is too outdated. Please update the references with recent papers, evaluation on the development of urban low-carbon passenger transportation structure in tianjin.
Response 6: We tried to take into account your comments, made a generalization and classified the results of the analysis by different topics. And also updated some of the literature with new ones. For example, added: Lu, Fuqiang, Hao, Haojun, Bi, Hualing. (2024) Evaluation on the development of urban low-carbon passenger transportation structure in Tianjin. Research in Transportation Business & Management, Volume 55, August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2024.101142 and etc.
Comments 7: In the article, only "expert evaluation" and "sample data" are mentioned. It is necessary to explain the expert evaluation process, evaluation criteria, and sample selection method.
Response 7: We agree with your observation. In the "Methodology and Data" section of the text, the following clarification has been provided (see lines 439-443 and 456-466):
The expert evaluation process involved the formation of an expert group comprising 15 specialists. The congestion index was determined on a scale from 0 to 6, where a higher score indicates poorer accessibility. Data processing and analysis were conducted using the weighted sum method.
The polarity of meso-districts was assessed based on their accessibility to key infrastructure facilities. The criteria for evaluating polarity included social and economic (industrial and business infrastructure), institutional, and environmental infrastructure. Sampling was conducted using a combined method based on the following parameters: stratified sampling (meso-districts); geographical coverage (center, periphery, suburbs); functional zones (industrial zones, residential areas, commercial centers); and transport accessibility parameters.
The relationship between the polarity of the city's meso-districts (the degree of accessibility of meso-districts to urban infrastructure facilities) and the logistics flow of meso-districts was studied using the following indicators:
- Polarity of meso-districts relative to each other,
- Polarity of credit and financial institutions,
- Polarity of administrative institutions,
- Polarity of security service facilities,
- Polarity of children's educational institutions,
- Polarity of utility service facilities,
- Polarity of healthcare facilities,
- Polarity of social service facilities,
- Polarity of preschool educational institutions,
- Polarity of cultural and educational institutions,
- Polarity of sports facilities,
- Polarity of recreational facilities not included in the previous categories,
- Polarity of industrial enterprises,
14–17. Polarity of trade and commercial facilities (shopping and entertainment complexes, shopping centers, wholesale warehouses, business centers).
This methodological approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the interplay between meso-district polarity and logistics flows, providing a robust foundation for further analysis and decision-making.
Comments 8: The limitations of the research are not mentioned in the conclusion. Relevant discussions should be added, and subsequent research plans should be clarified.
Response 8: We understand that the graph model simplifies logistics flows and does not take into account dynamic changes (e.g. seasonal changes in demand or infrastructure availability).
This study does not take into account some limitations related to the quality of the source data. Since the analysis used expert and statistical data only for a specific period, without taking into account dynamic changes. Future studies should be conducted taking into account dynamic factors, integrating real data from urban infrastructure sensors to improve accuracy. Conduct comparative studies in different cities to test scalability and develop tools for analyzing and visualizing the results to facilitate decision making by stakeholders. The corresponding changes have been added to lines 764-773.
Overall, we would like to express our deep gratitude to you for your time and valuable comments, which we hope to have improved our work.
Your expert advice helped make the study more in-depth and high-quality.
Sincerely,
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents theoretical and practical foundations for improving the city's transport and logistics infrastructure by using graph theory method. Although the proposal has a great practical utility, the manuscript could be better described to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.
1) It is necessary to describe the main objective of the article in the abstract section. This objective must mainly highlight the scientific novelty.
2) In the literature review section, it is necessary to systematize each element of the model (Figure 1). For example, a table could be constructed that includes each element along with its references and sources.
3) In the results, and conclusion sections, it is necessary to compare the model used with articles 54 [Tarasov, S.A.; Tarasov, Yu.S.; Shvalov, P.G. Method for determining the poles of the meso-region graph of the logistics infrastructure of a megalopolis] and 55 [Shuangdong, Li; Jing, Xu; Ste, Cele. Application of graph theory in transportation linkage in logistics management and its computer-aided model design]. After that, the authors could obtain the article mains contributions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The Quality of English Language is good.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved.
Check the formulas and revise them using Formula editor, such as formula (1)-(3).
Author Response
- Summary
Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript once again and providing valuable comments to improve the quality of the work. Below you will find the responses and corresponding corrections /highlighted in turquoise/.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [The paper has been improved. Check the formulas and revise them using Formula editor, such as formula (1)-(3).]
Answer 1: Formulas (1)-(3) are checked and typed using the formula editor.
The academic English language in the manuscript has been checked and improved again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made improvements in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Author Response
- Summary
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript once again and for your valuable comments on how to improve the quality of the work. Below you will find detailed responses and corresponding corrections /highlighted/.
The conclusions are supported by the results presented in the article, and some results are referenced in the secondary literature [49-52].
The academic English language in the manuscript has been checked and improved again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
