Balancing Development and Sustainability: Lessons from Roadbuilding in Mountainous Asia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-    The abstract should be revised to include some key findings from the paper.

2-     The abstract feels somewhat generic, to make the idea more real, please give a short, clear example of at least one of these problems.

3-     It is not worthy of being an article in a prestigious magazine, such as Sustainability, because there is nothing new or results, not even actual comparisons.

4-     The conclusion does so in a generalized manner without referencing specific findings or examples from the paper.

5-     Include examples or insights from the discussed three road-building test case studies to strengthen the argument of the conclusion to the research presented.

6-     In the conclusion, “sustainable development has been criticized ”, these criticisms without going into detail.

7-      In the conclusion, link the findings back to specific examples in the three case studies.

8-     Consider associating individual references with specific claims, insights, or examples, rather than grouping them like [23,24-27] , [28,29] , [30,31], [37,38] , [54-56], [68-70] ,,,,.

Author Response

Review #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-    The abstract should be revised to include some key findings from the paper.

2-     The abstract feels somewhat generic, to make the idea more real, please give a short, clear example of at least one of these problems.

Response: Comments 1 and 2 refer to the Abstract. We have added some of the key findings of the paper here for the three sites. These examples illustrate the specific nature of the environment and social problems at specific sites. Please see changes on lines 15-24 in the Abstract.

3-     It is not worthy of being an article in a prestigious magazine, such as Sustainability, because there is nothing new or results, not even actual comparisons.

Response: Additional findings are presented for the case studies (see lines 102-116 & 172-182, plus other revisions, in the Yunnan study; lines 239-249, plus other revisions in the Central Asia BRI study; and lines 317-328, plus other revisions in the Kedarnath study). These findings were then organized in a new Table1 to address several reviewers’ concerns.

4-     The conclusion does so in a generalized manner without referencing specific findings or examples from the paper.

Response: I assume that this reviewer is referring to the “Closing Remarks” section of the paper. Please remember that this is not a research paper, but rather a Perspective paper. As such, we use brief “Closing Remarks” (slightly modified as suggested) instead of a typical “Conclusions” section that would be common in a research paper. We edited the Closing Remarks a bit for clarity and specificity.

5-     Include examples or insights from the discussed three road-building test case studies to strengthen the argument of the conclusion to the research presented.

Response: Please see the information added in each case study (mentioned in response to point #3) and particularly the comprehensive information in new Table 1.

6-     In the conclusion, “sustainable development has been criticized ”, these criticisms without going into detail.

Response: As noted, we edited the Closing Remarks for clarity and added a few supportive references.

7-      In the conclusion, link the findings back to specific examples in the three case studies.

Response: Again, this is not a “Conclusion” section; we have added some general linkages, but this is best exemplified in the new Table 1. 

8-     Consider associating individual references with specific claims, insights, or examples, rather than grouping them like [23,24-27] , [28,29] , [30,31], [37,38] , [54-56], [68-70] ,,,,.

Response: In the revised version of the paper, I think if you look at the citing of references and examine these papers, you will see that they are associated with distinct points. We have added about 10 new references.

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review provides a perspective on road building in mountainous Asia which focusses on the mountains of Central Asia and its periphery. The authors´agenda is to highlight the risks of rapid road building without holistic planning and consideration of the special requirements of building roads in mountainous terrain.

The introduction develops this perspective in sufficient detail and introduces the term “toeprints” or “sustainable toeprints” for overlooked or unintended consequences of development interventions. Since the toeprints mentioned in the case studies are usually of a negative kind, “sustainable toeprints” would be a misnomer.

Introduction is followed by  three cases which differ vastly in scale and development status of the respective countries or regions: case 1 refers to a province in China, case 2 to the transnational region of Central Asia, and case 3 to a pilgrimage site in the Indian Himalaya. The heterogeneity of the cases makes general statements across these cases such as the one on p 9 l 329-330  “Because the economies of developing nations cannot support widespread engineering measures…” problematic. This particular statement may apply to some parts of India and Central Asia, but does certainly not apply to China. The negative impacts created by roadbuilding in mountains of China are most certainly not a result of lacking engineering capacity but more probably of poor planning and a preoccupation with speed over quality.  For reasons like this, the selection of cases seems somewhat haphazard, and some explanation of the selection principle and why specifically these case studies were used and not others would be helpful.

An obvious candidate would have been the Karakoram Highway which has a longer history than the initiatives dealt with in the paper and for which a wealth of research, e.g. on the side-effects of road-building, such as forest degradation in Pakistan, exists.

The Karakoram Highway which has now morphed into the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor would have also been a prime example for the geopolitical pressure that can lie behind road building in Asia. Geopolitical pressure, which is also an important driver of the Belt and Road Initiative (case 2) and which can account for some of the risks associated with road building in mountainous Asia, appears in figure 2 but is not really explored in the text.

Some of the conclusions drawn from the case studies are elusive and full of catchwords such as the statement on p 10, l 390 to 391 that “..case studies herein highlight the importance of adaptive management, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and inclusive governance” This is not wrong, but also not specific for roadbuilding in mountainous Asia.

The reference list is comprehensive and up to date. I recommend, however, to include the paper by Balmford et al. 2016 “Getting road expansion on the right track” into discussion and ref list even though the focus of the paper is not on roads in mountainous terrain.

The paper presents a satisfactory but not very rigorous or coherent effort to introduce readers to the inherent risks of road building in mountainous Asia. The authors could have done a better and especially a more systematic job of exploring the specificities of each one of their case studies.

Minor issues

p. 3 l 94:  the Ancient and Horse Caravan trade route was not from Yunnan to India, but from Yunnan to Tibet.

p. 4 l 121-122 . The naming of the Three Parallel rivers is inconsistent. Salween and Mekong are applied to the full length of these rivers, while Jinsha is the Chinese name for the upper course of the Yangtze river. So it should either be Salween, Mekong, and Yangtze, or Nujiang, Lancang (Chinese names for the upper courses of Salween  and Mekong) and Jinsha.

P 4 l 142-143, it would be useful to explain what a sustainability decision analysis framework is.

p. 6 l 219 BRI is not a large-scale national project, but an international project.

Author Response

Review 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under review provides a perspective on road building in mountainous Asia which focusses on the mountains of Central Asia and its periphery. The authors´agenda is to highlight the risks of rapid road building without holistic planning and consideration of the special requirements of building roads in mountainous terrain.

Response: Thank you very much for this detailed review

The introduction develops this perspective in sufficient detail and introduces the term “toeprints” or “sustainable toeprints” for overlooked or unintended consequences of development interventions. Since the toeprints mentioned in the case studies are usually of a negative kind, “sustainable toeprints” would be a misnomer.

Response: We understand the confusion our terminology presented. To rectify this problem, we dropped the adjective ‘sustainable’ on line 42; here and elsewhere we only refer to toeprints.  

Introduction is followed by  three cases which differ vastly in scale and development status of the respective countries or regions: case 1 refers to a province in China, case 2 to the transnational region of Central Asia, and case 3 to a pilgrimage site in the Indian Himalaya. The heterogeneity of the cases makes general statements across these cases such as the one on p 9 l 329-330  “Because the economies of developing nations cannot support widespread engineering measures…” problematic. This particular statement may apply to some parts of India and Central Asia, but does certainly not apply to China. The negative impacts created by roadbuilding in mountains of China are most certainly not a result of lacking engineering capacity but more probably of poor planning and a preoccupation with speed over quality.  For reasons like this, the selection of cases seems somewhat haphazard, and some explanation of the selection principle and why specifically these case studies were used and not others would be helpful.

Response: We appreciate this comment. First, the spatial scales of these three study areas are not the key point of this Perspective paper. Additionally, the Central Asia study focuses mostly on the Pamir in eastern Tajikistan, while the Yunnan study is within the UNESCO Three Parallel Rivers Region, a rather narrow corridor in northwest Yunnan. To address the key point raised by this reviewer (i.e., study site selection criteria), we expanded and modified the last part of the Introduction where the study areas were introduced. This now reads as: “While these overall areas have diverse spatial footprints, we take a more nuanced approach in the discussion of each case study to assess specific anthropogenic practices that contribute to environmental problems with suggestions for amelioration. As such, the case studies represent good examples to examine, recognizing many other examples exist elsewhere.” Also, earlier in the Introduction we state “The three cases, all from developing mountain regions where the authors have worked…”.

An obvious candidate would have been the Karakoram Highway which has a longer history than the initiatives dealt with in the paper and for which a wealth of research, e.g. on the side-effects of road-building, such as forest degradation in Pakistan, exists.

The Karakoram Highway which has now morphed into the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor would have also been a prime example for the geopolitical pressure that can lie behind road building in Asia.

Response: Good point, but we focused on areas where we have worked for many years and that are more “off the radar” of many researchers dealing with disaster risk reduction.

Geopolitical pressure, which is also an important driver of the Belt and Road Initiative (case 2) and which can account for some of the risks associated with road building in mountainous Asia, appears in figure 2 but is not really explored in the text.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this important omission in the text. We now refer to geopolitical pressures in the Abstract (line 12), Introduction (line 81), the Yunnan study (line 114) and in the Discussion (line 356). Geopolitical pressures in the BRI are also implicit in lines 205-208, 247-249, and Table 1.

Some of the conclusions drawn from the case studies are elusive and full of catchwords such as the statement on p 10, l 390 to 391 that “..case studies herein highlight the importance of adaptive management, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and inclusive governance” This is not wrong, but also not specific for roadbuilding in mountainous Asia.

Response: We agree these generalities are not exclusive for mountain road development. We hope that the detailed information in the new Table 1 satisfies the issue of greater specificity. We have also tried to remove some of the redundancies in the paper associated with these generalizations.

The reference list is comprehensive and up to date. I recommend, however, to include the paper by Balmford et al. 2016 “Getting road expansion on the right track” into discussion and ref list even though the focus of the paper is not on roads in mountainous terrain.

Response: Thank you. Reference to Balmford et al. (2016) [reference #20] now appears on line 73; other references have been added as well.

The paper presents a satisfactory but not very rigorous or coherent effort to introduce readers to the inherent risks of road building in mountainous Asia. The authors could have done a better and especially a more systematic job of exploring the specificities of each one of their case studies.

Response: Thank you. Please see the text we added, particularly in the Central Asian and Yunnan study areas, as well as the detailed information presented in new Table 1 that addresses specific road planning and construction issues, environmental and social issues, and measure for reducing road impacts. We feel that the information compiled in Table 1 is a systematic summary and comparison of the main issues related to mountain roads at these sites.

Minor issues

1. 3 l 94:  the Ancient and Horse Caravan trade route was not from Yunnan to India, but from Yunnan to Tibet.

Response: According to the reference we cited, the road first goes through Tibet and then on to Nepal and India. The sentence has been reworded as “…including the “Yunnan-Burma Road” used by the military [23] and the historic “Ancient Tea and Horse Caravan” trade route through Tibet to Nepal and India [24].” (lines 96-98)

1. 4 l 121-122 . The naming of the Three Parallel rivers is inconsistent. Salween and Mekong are applied to the full length of these rivers, while Jinsha is the Chinese name for the upper course of the Yangtze river. So it should either be Salween, Mekong, and Yangtze, or Nujiang, Lancang (Chinese names for the upper courses of Salween  and Mekong) and Jinsha.

Response: We replaced Jingsha with upper Yangtze.

P 4 l 142-143, it would be useful to explain what a sustainability decision analysis framework is.

Response: Details of this sustainability decision analysis framework are presented in the cited Sidle et al. (2014) paper in NHESS [reference #38] and now we have added some of these key components and new components to the information presented in our new Table 1.

1. 6 l 219 BRI is not a large-scale national project, but an international project.

Response: My bad, of course this is an international project – now changed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript.

I the MDPI Sustainability webpage, the aim of the journal is as follows:

==================================================

Our aim is to encourage researchers to publish their experimental, computational, and theoretical research relating to natural and applied sciences, engineering,

economics, social sciences, and humanities in detail to promote scientific and other understanding and to permit predictions and impact assessments of global change and development related to sustainability. Knowing the importance of sustainability and achieving sustainable development for humanity, Sustainability strives to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by United Nations. As a transdisciplinary journal, Sustainability encourages researchers to provide full experimental and methodological details so that results can be reproduced and assessed. The journal supports open access and open science.

In addition, Sustainability has several unique features:

 

• Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas are welcome;
• Electronic files or software with full details of the calculations and experimental procedures, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material;
• Manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds will be considered.

==================================================

After carefully reading the manuscript, I do not find it within the scope of the online stated aims of the journal. Here are the reasons why:

1. The manuscript is not a research as defined in the aim. It does not fit in any of the above three categories/features.

2. Since there is no research performed, it is not possible to verify, duplicate, and comment non-existing data, methodology, etc.

3. All the information is basically collected from references.

4. This manuscript is very appropriate to appear as a newspaper article or other similar venues.

THE END

 

 

Author Response

Review 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript.

I the MDPI Sustainability webpage, the aim of the journal is as follows:

==================================================

Our aim is to encourage researchers to publish their experimental, computational, and theoretical research relating to natural and applied sciences, engineering, economics, social sciences, and humanities in detail to promote scientific and other understanding and to permit predictions and impact assessments of global change and development related to sustainability. Knowing the importance of sustainability and achieving sustainable development for humanity, Sustainability strives to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by United Nations. As a transdisciplinary journal, Sustainability encourages researchers to provide full experimental and methodological details so that results can be reproduced and assessed. The journal supports open access and open science.

In addition, Sustainability has several unique features:

 Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas are welcome;

• Electronic files or software with full details of the calculations and experimental procedures, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material;
• Manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds will be considered.

==================================================

After carefully reading the manuscript, I do not find it within the scope of the online stated aims of the journal. Here are the reasons why:

1. The manuscript is not a research as defined in the aim. It does not fit in any of the above three categories/features.
2. Since there is no research performed, it is not possible to verify, duplicate, and comment non-existing data, methodology, etc.

Response: In answer to points 1 and 2, this is not a research paper, rather a Perspective paper as shown on the first page. As such, a traditional research construct is not appropriate.

3. All the information is basically collected from references.

Response: I’m sorry but this is not true. While we have cited data from some of our earlier findings as well as others’ research in the general vicinity of these sites, the importance of this Perspective paper is that we  synthesized this material in a manner that holistically addresses some of the important issues of mountain road development and have applied our combined working knowledge of more than 55 years on road and trail issues in such regions. Please see the new Table 1 as an example where we compare and contrast the various mountain road planning and construction issues and the most important environmental and socioeconomic factors along with potential measures that can be introduced to reduce the impacts of roadbuilding in a sustainable manner.

4. This manuscript is very appropriate to appear as a newspaper article or other similar venues.

Response: We feel the revised paper is an appropriate Perspective article for Sustainability. Other reviewers have agreed with our opinion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic is an extremely important one:  poorly constructed roads continue to create mountain risks.  The argumentation is clearly stated but somewhat repetitive and often quite biased against mountain roads, overlooking many positive benefits.  The three case studies are very well articulated and well chosen to illustrate the issues.  

I suggest that the paper be published but I recommend more balanced arguments, unless the manuscript is to be an opinion piece, rather than science.  Also, I suggest finding a more innovative entry point for the article.  All of these issues are extremely important but I will be a bit provocative here:  haven't they already been documented by the literature ? and also by many of your own publications ?  

• the issues are still relevant as the mistakes keep being repeated but how is the manuscript an additional contribution to the literature on this topic?

- perhaps a novelty would be to give one GOOD example where somebody got it right !?

so one or two bad examples with one good one and a list of best practices - a kind of check list or decision tree...?  

• you mention "actionable sustainability strategies"  (line 153)  
• so how could you have turned all three bad examples into good examples ? 
• change the narrative (even if hypothetical)  - consider adding a table of good practices below each of the bad case study examples - 

I hope that the authors can find ways of addressing the above as I still highly recommend that the manuscript be published.  See also my many comments in the attached PDF.

Best regards

Karen Sudmeier-Rieux

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic is an extremely important one:  poorly constructed roads continue to create mountain risks.  The argumentation is clearly stated but somewhat repetitive and often quite biased against mountain roads, overlooking many positive benefits.  The three case studies are very well articulated and well chosen to illustrate the issues.  

I suggest that the paper be published but I recommend more balanced arguments, unless the manuscript is to be an opinion piece, rather than science.  Also, I suggest finding a more innovative entry point for the article.  All of these issues are extremely important but I will be a bit provocative here:  haven't they already been documented by the literature ? and also by many of your own publications ?  

Response: First, thank you for the excellent review. Actually, this is a Perspective paper, but we want this to be as science-focused as possible; however, as a Perspective paper this allows us room to inject our opinions more than in a purely research paper. We have reworked parts of the Introduction (e.g., lines 84-90) and Discussion (e.g., lines 330-345) sections to present a more balanced ‘perspective’ on the overall road issue introducing a number of new references. Nevertheless, most of the prior literature focuses on the advantages of road expansion in developing nations and we wished to counter that narrative in this Perspective article. Please see additions we made in the Yunnan case study (lines 109-118), the Central Asia study (lines 203-205; 268-270), and, to a limited extent (line 365) in the Kedarnath study (lines 323-328) to address your questions. And, yes, we deliberately selected study sites that we have worked in (noted in the Introduction) and previously published about (either together or independently). However, in the new information in the last sentence of the Introduction (lines 84-90) we clarify the focus of tis Perspective paper. Importantly, the comparisons and contrasts amongst the various sites are now more evident in the text that we added in each case study as well as the detailed information presented in new Table 1.

• the issues are still relevant as the mistakes keep being repeated but how is the manuscript an additional contribution to the literature on this topic?

Response: As noted in the previous reply, we feel that the novelty and added value here is now captured in the last paragraph of the Introduction as well as in other revisions.  

- perhaps a novelty would be to give one GOOD example where somebody got it right !?

so one or two bad examples with one good one and a list of best practices - a kind of check list or decision tree...?  

Response: You raised a good point. After much consternation, we decided to address this issue by outlining the major road planning and construction problems in each study area along with salient environmental and social issues followed by potential measures for reducing these impacts – this shows the potentially good and bad aspects of each site in a more cohesive manner. Rather than jumping to another area that would have different challenges, this path looks directly at each area and outlines some ideas and recommendations for more sustainable road development. It also addresses your earlier comment related to presenting a more balanced argument. Please see additions to the Yunnan case study in lines 102-116 & 172-182, plus other revisions;  revisions for the Central Asia BRI study appear in lines 239-249, plus other revisions; and for the Kedarnath study revisions are on lines 317-328. Importantly, we addressed the issue of “good and bad” examples in our new Table 1 that details and compares road planning and construction issues along with environmental and social issues and suggests potential measures for reducing impacts. This approach puts a more positive slant on our presentation.

• you mention "actionable sustainability strategies"  (line 153)

Response: As noted in the previous response, actionable strategies are now introduced in the new Table 1. This is now expanded upon in a paragraph that follows where we introduce the detailed information in Table 1. 

• so how could you have turned all three bad examples into good examples ? 
• change the narrative (even if hypothetical)  - consider adding a table of good practices below each of the bad case study examples – 

Response: To address these two points, as noted in our earlier response, we dealt with this by adding the most comprehensive issues and ameliorative practices in the new Table 1. Also please see the new text we added in the Yunnan example (lines 174-182) and the Central Asia BRI example (lines 239-249) that addresses best management practices for mountain roads. For the Kedarnath example, we modified the last paragraph to emphasize planning and early warning needs (lines 323-328).

I hope that the authors can find ways of addressing the above as I still highly recommend that the manuscript be published.  See also my many comments in the attached PDF.

Response: Below we address most of the comments noted on the edited pdf:

Lines 66-68 now read: “Ongoing mountain road planning and construction provide a contemporary lens for examining the complexities in the continuum of development to sustainability objectives.”

Line 140: ‘fillslopes’ is correct

Lines 159-161: “The touted benefits of mountain roads—enhanced livelihoods, economic connectivity, and tourism—become questionable when weighed against their environmental toll.” (this is our opinion based on experience; no reference)

First sentence in section 2.2 (lines 214-216) revised as “Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan play vital roles in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China in 2013 as “One Belt One Road” that is being implemented to support China’s economic development [17,42].” Including a new reference.

Figure 2: Geopolitical pressure refers to governments that put pressure on developing nations to, for example, quid pro quo related to certain  pro-China policies.

“Toeprints” are explained briefly in the Abstract.

The reference to Bashayicun and Mandian residents was based on Sidle’s experience in these areas.

Lines 262-264 Overall, we agree, migration can have mixed effects on natural resource management (or none at all); the statement here was specific to this area of Xishuangbanna.

The Kedarnath example has been reworked to remove repetition.

Some benefits of roads are now presented earlier in the paper (prior to the Discussion).

Lines 323-326 We now mention the need for government to implement policies that restrict tourist numbers.

See revisions in lines 332-336 and lines 343-345 related to your comment about negative implications.

Lines 382-382: bioengineering added with a new reference.

Lines 390-392 We do not feel this is an overly negative statement, but we modified this as requested.

We addressed the general comments related to Closing Remarks in other parts of the paper (see earlier responses).

 Thank you. We believe that the revised manuscript is very much improved based on your suggestions.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the issue of sustainable development in mountainous road construction, using case studies from Yunnan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the Kedarnath disaster in India to analyze the environmental and social risks, such as landslides, sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, and disruptions to local livelihoods and cultures. The paper provides valuable insights and highlights the importance of transdisciplinary research, community engagement, and integrated frameworks for disaster risk reduction and sustainability.

However, it lacks sufficient discussion on how to address these challenges and fails to provide clear directions for future work. Specifically, the manuscript does not adequately propose actionable solutions or frameworks in terms of policy tools, technical measures, and implementation strategies. The analysis of the case studies is superficial, missing an in-depth exploration of lessons learned and their broader applicability. Additionally, the discussion section requires better structure and logical coherence.

It is recommended to significantly revise the manuscript by enhancing the discussion of solutions and future research priorities, deepening the case study analysis, and improving the organization and clarity of the narrative. Overall, major revisions are required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Review 5

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the issue of sustainable development in mountainous road construction, using case studies from Yunnan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the Kedarnath disaster in India to analyze the environmental and social risks, such as landslides, sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, and disruptions to local livelihoods and cultures. The paper provides valuable insights and highlights the importance of transdisciplinary research, community engagement, and integrated frameworks for disaster risk reduction and sustainability.

Response: Thank you for the positive comment.

However, it lacks sufficient discussion on how to address these challenges and fails to provide clear directions for future work. Specifically, the manuscript does not adequately propose actionable solutions or frameworks in terms of policy tools, technical measures, and implementation strategies. The analysis of the case studies is superficial, missing an in-depth exploration of lessons learned and their broader applicability. Additionally, the discussion section requires better structure and logical coherence.

Response: We agree and have added considerable information about the challenges and actionable solutions both in the text of the three study areas (please see responses to reviewer 2 and 4), but also we added this information in the new comprehensive Table 1. Here (in Table 1) we directly address the road location and construction problems in each area along with the associated social and environmental issues and then outline some ideas and recommendations for more sustainable road development (actionable solutions). Changes have also been made in the Discussion section to improve coherence and reduce redundancies.

It is recommended to significantly revise the manuscript by enhancing the discussion of solutions and future research priorities, deepening the case study analysis, and improving the organization and clarity of the narrative. Overall, major revisions are required.

Response: Thank you for your insightful review. Solutions have now been addressed as indicated. We believe that the revised manuscript is very much improved based on your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Some parts of the paper are repeated, especially the parts that talk about slips and sediments. The framework could be simplified to get rid of unnecessary parts and make the text easier to read.

2- It would be more powerful for the conclusion if it summed up the main results and suggestions in a shorter way. Highlight what the study adds to the field of sustainable development and suggest areas where more research could be done.

3-The paper could be better if it had more numeric data, went into more detail about government and sociocultural effects, and showed both bad and positive results more fairly.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Some parts of the paper are repeated, especially the parts that talk about slips and sediments. The framework could be simplified to get rid of unnecessary parts and make the text easier to read.

Reply: Thank you. We tried to reduce the repetition where possible, particularly related to specific natural hazard terminology (e.g., landslides, sedimentation). Please see our changes in lines 134-135, 143, 156, 260, and 350. Any further changes would compromise our intended message.

2- It would be more powerful for the conclusion if it summed up the main results and suggestions in a shorter way. Highlight what the study adds to the field of sustainable development and suggest areas where more research could be done.

Reply: Thank you for this comment; however, it seems that there is an expectation that this “Closing Remarks” section is somewhat akin to a “Conclusions” section of a Research paper. Please remember that this is a Perspective paper. However, the point raised about the key message of the paper is appreciated. This was actually presented in the first two sentences of the Discussion section which has been slightly modified and moved into the first paragraph of the “Closing Remarks” section – see lines 436-442.

3-The paper could be better if it had more numeric data, went into more detail about government and sociocultural effects, and showed both bad and positive results more fairly.

Reply: Thank you for this comment. In response to this, we added sentences and changes that illustrate the importance of governmental and socio-economic ‘connections’ in terms of addressing the sustainable development of mountain roads in the three study regions. See additions on lines: 122, 134-135, 167-168, 176-177, 195, 312-313, 370-372, and 412. As far as dealing with the ‘bad’ and positive aspects of mountain roads, we added Table 1 in our last revision (also see lines 174-185) – this provides some examples of how the problems in each of these three areas could be addressed (see the column headed as “Potential measures for reducing impacts” in Table 1). To further emphasize some of the positive impacts of roads (beyond the changes already made in our first revision), we now provide additional information in lines 122, 166-168, 195, and 312-313. Related to ‘more numeric data’, we already include landslide erosion rates in the Yunnan example but have now added more specific quantification of landslide erosion from both cut- and fillslopes of roads – see additions in lines 140-144. These changes should address your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

After carefully reviewing the latest version of the manuscript, I am not convinced that the manuscript is suitable for a research-oriented journal such as MDPI Sustainability. The manuscript does not present any original research; rather, it merely describes the natural hazards affecting roadways in mountainous areas and their economic impact on nearby communities. While the term "sustainability" is mentioned, there is no substantive discussion linking these natural hazards to sustainability. Given these concerns, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this manuscript for publication in your journal.

Additionally, I found it inappropriate that the authors referenced the acceptance of the manuscript by other reviewers in response to my last comment. This statement appears to suggest that my review should align with others, which I find both offensive and unprofessional. Each reviewer is expected to provide an independent and objective assessment, and such comparisons are neither relevant nor constructive.

THE END

Author Response

Reviewer 3

After carefully reviewing the latest version of the manuscript, I am not convinced that the manuscript is suitable for a research-oriented journal such as MDPI Sustainability. The manuscript does not present any original research; rather, it merely describes the natural hazards affecting roadways in mountainous areas and their economic impact on nearby communities. While the term "sustainability" is mentioned, there is no substantive discussion linking these natural hazards to sustainability. Given these concerns, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this manuscript for publication in your journal.

Reply: While we respect your opinion, I would draw your attention to the following parts of the paper where links between natural hazards and associated disasters were made with sustainability and sustainable development. Please see lines: 24-27 (Abstract), 38-46 (implicitly), 144-146, 164-168, 215-218, several places in Table 1, 271-275, 321-323, and 434-436 (revised and moved to Closing Remarks section).

Additionally, I found it inappropriate that the authors referenced the acceptance of the manuscript by other reviewers in response to my last comment. This statement appears to suggest that my review should align with others, which I find both offensive and unprofessional. Each reviewer is expected to provide an independent and objective assessment, and such comparisons are neither relevant nor constructive.

Reply: There was absolutely no intention on our part to disrespect the reviewer’s opinions. In trying to address the comments of five reviewers, there are always some disagreements or differences of opinion amongst reviewers. As authors, we need to deal with these different opinions in our revisions. In my experience on the editorial board of numerous high-level journals, such comparisons are frequently raised by authors to explain why or not suggestions were taken.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am glad that my comments were useful.

The revised manuscript is much more interesting, original and a useful contribution to the scientific literature on the topic.

Thank you for this second version.

Best wishes, Karen

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Dear authors,

I am glad that my comments were useful.

The revised manuscript is much more interesting, original and a useful contribution to the scientific literature on the topic.

Thank you for this second version.

Reply: Thank you for your positive reply.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.

Reply: Thank you for your positive reply.