Land Plot Selection Rationale for the Location of Linear Facilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General information:

The article discusses matters which are relatively rarely the subject of research. Optimal selection of a linear investment location is a difficult issue which, at the same time, poses great challenges in the process of developing proper methods and algorithms. A valuable research material which, after introducing a number of corrections, should be published in the Land journal.

Detailed comments:

The Abstract is too short and should be supplemented by a reference to the obtained results and not only to the objectives and methodology used.

Introduction – insufficient references to the world literature concerning the identification of the optimal location of ‘linear facilities’. There is no overview of the methods of solving optimization issues related to ‘facility location problem’.

Methodology: part from line 257 to 267 can be removed.

Figure 1. Lack of clear identification of the numbers of considered alternative gas pipeline routes (1,2,3).  No scale in the figure. Lack of location of the facility on the map of Russia.

Figure 1 and Table 1. Location of these elements should not take place in the Methodology section. It is suggested to separate the Study area section from the characteristics of the research area.

Table 1. Indication of amounts in rubles in fractions is not necessary.

Figure 3 and Figure 4. Too laconic caption under the figures.

Figure 4. The axis not labelled.

No discussion of the results. No separate Discussion section or its inclusion in the Results section (e.g. Results and Discussion). To what extent can the proposed approach be applied in practice, taking into account the actual Russian legal conditions? Is it possible to compare the proposed solution to other known methods of determining the right location for linear investments?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments.

Point 1. The Abstract is too short and should be supplemented by a reference to the obtained results and not only to the objectives and methodology used.

Response 1. The Abstract is supplemented with the obtained results which are the factors affecting decision-making for the selection of land plot for a gas pipeline.

Point 2. Introduction – insufficient references to the world literature concerning the identification of the optimal location of ‘linear facilities’. There is no overview of the methods of solving optimization issues related to ‘facility location problem’.

Response 2. References 34-38 have been added, partly to the introduction, and to 2.2. Scientific background.

Point 3. Methodology: part from line 257 to 267 can be removed.

Response 3. We would prefer to keep it if possible.

Point 4. Figure 1. Lack of clear identification of the numbers of considered alternative gas pipeline routes (1,2,3).  No scale in the figure. Lack of location of the facility on the map of Russia.

Response 4. The numbers have been added. The map was made in MapInfo 1:1. The parameters have been changed for the sake of formatting the article that’s why the scale is not given. The pipeline is an underground facility and it cannot be seen in images. They are usually not drawn in maps. However, its location is identified in line 430.

Point 5. Figure 1 and Table 1. Location of these elements should not take place in the Methodology section. It is suggested to separate the Study area section from the characteristics of the research area.

Response 5. Done as suggested

Point 6. Table 1. Indication of amounts in rubles in fractions is not necessary.

Response 6. This is a common way to present amounts in Russia.

Point 7. Figure 3 and Figure 4. Too laconic caption under the figures.

Response 7. Corrected

Point 8. Figure 4. The axis not labelled.

Response 8. Added

Pont 9. No discussion of the results. No separate Discussion section or its inclusion in the Results section (e.g. Results and Discussion). To what extent can the proposed approach be applied in practice, taking into account the actual Russian legal conditions? Is it possible to compare the proposed solution to other known methods of determining the right location for linear investments?

Response 9. Added

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction • Need to improve grammar in abstract • Need references to support the need for a novel plan for linear facilities. What is wrong with what planners have been traditionally doing? Lit review • Needs vast improvement since the focus is only on Russia. This is a problem faced by many countries in the world and hence the literature should try to address the global scenario when it comes to linear facility planning • On line 186: There is an unknown symbol between E_c and E_s. Please define? • Eq. (1) and Eq. (2): That’s not what is commonly used to format objective functions. The min/max comes first. Please adopt usual convention • Symbols in equations and in text are not unified. Please adopt the same symbols (if they are italicised then they should be in both the equations and in text) • Eq. (3) and Eq. (4): poor formatting. Please have a look at: • There are plenty of papers that talk about facility location that haven’t been cited. Please cite the following: o Megiddo, Nimrod, and Arie Tamir. "On the complexity of locating linear facilities in the plane." Operations research letters 1.5 (1982): 194-197. o Hammad, Ahmed WA, Ali Akbarnezhad, and David Rey. "Sustainable urban facility location: Minimising noise pollution and network congestion." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 107 (2017): 38-59. o Murray, Alan T., and Daoqin Tong. "Coverage optimization in continuous space facility siting." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21.7 (2007): 757-776. Methodology • How are the weights decided? And is the impact of weight choice a linear process i.e. if you double the weight, do you get double the significance for the criteria. • The decision-making approach presented shows resemblance to TOPSIS? How is it any different • Figure 1: The pipeline alternatives are not clear • I suggest you label this section as a case study. The methodology section can contain Figure 2 and an associated explanation. Then you can move on to a Case Study section where you start talking about Figure 1 • Table 4: Why would 18 experts be deemed sufficient? Have you though about increasing the sample size? How did you know that 18 is a representative sample? Conclusion • I wouldn’t label what you are doing as mathematical. It is more multi-criteria decision making. Mathematical would imply the formulation of an optimisation problem • You need to highlight 2-3 weaknesses of the research. Please look at my comments above as they indicate weaknesses.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments.

Point 1. Introduction • Need to improve grammar in abstract • Need references to support the need for a novel plan for linear facilities. What is wrong with what planners have been traditionally doing?

Response 1. Abstract is revised and corrected. Introduction is supplemented. The changes are highlighted in the text.

Point 2. Lit review • Needs vast improvement since the focus is only on Russia. This is a problem faced by many countries in the world and hence the literature should try to address the global scenario when it comes to linear facility planning.

Response 2. Suggested references added.

Point 3.  On line 186: There is an unknown symbol between E_c and E_s. Please define? • Eq. (1) and Eq. (2): That’s not what is commonly used to format objective functions. The min/max comes first. Please adopt usual convention

Response 3. Symbol  means equal or more. The usual convention of formatting adopted.

Point 4. Symbols in equations and in text are not unified. Please adopt the same symbols (if they are italicised then they should be in both the equations and in text). Eq. (3) and Eq. (4): poor formatting.

Response 4. Done

Point 5.  Please have a look at: • There are plenty of papers that talk about facility location that haven’t been cited. Please cite the following: o Megiddo, Nimrod, and Arie Tamir. "On the complexity of locating linear facilities in the plane." Operations research letters 1.5 (1982): 194-197. o Hammad, Ahmed WA, Ali Akbarnezhad, and David Rey. "Sustainable urban facility location: Minimising noise pollution and network congestion." Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 107 (2017): 38-59. o Murray, Alan T., and Daoqin Tong. "Coverage optimization in continuous space facility siting." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21.7 (2007): 757-776.

Response 5. Added.

Point 6. Methodology • How are the weights decided? And is the impact of weight choice a linear process i.e. if you double the weight, do you get double the significance for the criteria. • The decision-making approach presented shows resemblance to TOPSIS? How is it any different • Figure 1: The pipeline alternatives are not clear • I suggest you label this section as a case study. The methodology section can contain Figure 2 and an associated explanation. Then you can move on to a Case Study section where you start talking about Figure 1 • Table 4: Why would 18 experts be deemed sufficient? Have you though about increasing the sample size? How did you know that 18 is a representative sample?

Response 6. The weights are calculated following the analysis of experts opinions. The given research focuses on HAT (hierarchy analysis technique) as it makes it possible to take into consideration both, quantitative and qualitative factors. Moreover, the connection between them can be studied.

Case study recommendations have been followed.

The number of experts has been identified by several methods. The number of experts must be over 6. The consistency of experts answers has been checked. The competence level of experts has been proved by calculating arithmetical mean of deviation co-efficient in their opinions. It confirmed the correct number of experts. The expert group included competent professionals in the target area.

Point 7. Conclusion • I wouldn’t label what you are doing as mathematical. It is more multi-criteria decision making. Mathematical would imply the formulation of an optimisation problem •

Response 7. “Mathematical” implies application of tools used for assessment of situation, determination of technical and economic indicators, evaluation of options, averaging, selection of the most suitable indicator.

Point 8. You need to highlight 2-3 weaknesses of the research. Please look at my comments above as they indicate weaknesses. 

Response 8. Added to line 501.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have responded to my comments well

Author Response

Thank you for the notes.

Map scale added.