Green Resources for Safety Improvement and Sustainable Landscape Design: The Case of a Dangerous Tehran-Dizin Road Bend

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title need to be revised and made more readable. Remove "[3]" that appears in the title.

Line 34 - What does PIARC acronym stand for?

Line 34 to 38 - Poorly written - Needs to be re-written.

Line 59 - Indicate Year of Pirnia's study.

Lines 65-66  Please empahsize the point you wish to make in the paragraph - and list the gaps in the literature.

Line 70 The 'primary objective' is to 'optimize safety level' -considering both 'people' and 'roadside environment'. The 'people' does not seem to be discussed at length.

Figure 3 - Ls, Ds, should be clearly indicated on the figure.

Figure 4 - Hs, he, Ds, should be clearly indicated on the figure.

Line 201 - The 'main purpose' should be stated at the start of the paper. BTW, this conflicts with what is stated in Line 70 as the 'primary objective'.

Lines 201-206 - The 4 criteria listed are not discussed in the sections that follow.

Line 203 - Criterion 1 does not make sense. Do you mean 'appropriateness'?

Line 286 - The insertion of the quote defining 'synergy' is quite out of place.

291 - Conclusion is very weak, lacking substance. Needs to be re-written.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you for your comments and time. We have revised according to your comments and have highlighted our changes. In the following is our response to your comments.

1- The title need to be revised and made more readable. Remove "[3]" that appears in the title: I downloaded Manuscript for Revisions and I do not see [3] in the title.

The title has changed to:

Green Resources for Safety Improvement and Sustainable Landscape Design

2- Line 34 - What does PIARC acronym stand for? PIARC stands for Permanent International Association of Road Congresses. Description of PIARC has been added to the text.

3- Line 34 to 38 - Poorly written - Needs to be re-written.

According to Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC, 2003), human together with two other factors, environment and vehicle is the reason for 93% of accidents. The figure changes to nearly one-third when it comes to the road environment [3]. It is witnessed that 26% of accidents occur as a consequence of both human and environment-related factors, making it essential to consider situations where environment would affect human behavior and perception of the road.

4- Line 59 - Indicate Year of Pirnia's study. The book was published in 1991. Year has been added to the text.

5- Lines 65-66 Please emphasize the point you wish to make in the paragraph - and list the gaps in the literature.

Existing literature focuses only on characteristics of vegetation layer decreasing safety level, which should be avoided in plant selection [3], and it also discusses road components namely barriers, panels, and walls which would act as a safety booster [28], [29]. What seems to be missing in all aforesaid studies is considering soft and hard road features and their measures in landscape design based on road safety conditions.

6- Line 70 The 'primary objective' is to 'optimize safety level' -considering both 'people' and 'roadside environment'. The 'people' does not seem to be discussed at length.

Main focus of the study is to enhance road safety to serve road users. The effects of landscape design on people’s behavior (psychological aspects) has not been survey in results.

7- Figure 3 - Ls, Ds, should be clearly indicated on the figure.

The figure has changed to:

8- Figure 4 - Hs, he, Ds, should be clearly indicated on the figure.

The figure has changed to:

9- Line 201 - The 'main purpose' should be stated at the start of the paper. BTW, this conflicts with what is stated in Line 70 as the 'primary objective'.

First part has been removed and the sentence has changed to: To decide on a sight obstruction in terms of dimensions and material…

10- Lines 201-206 - The 4 criteria listed are not discussed in the sections that follow.

First paragraph of section 3.2.2. has changed to:

Selecting species has been based on With regard to Irano-Turanian species and, Road Landscape Regulations-Guideline: Road Landscape Vegetation, and 4 criteria defined above. Firstly, species which sustain climatic conditions and integrate with surrounding land-scape should be chosen. As the design occurs in a mountainous area, it is essential to select plants enduring harsh winds and improving resistance of the slope. Another influential factor is leaves density to cover visual distractions. Based on research and visual impact, it is also known that the proportion of conifers to broad-leaved trees should be one in two in green patches [41], and it is a major factor in plant selection. By considering the aforementioned factors, Pinus mugo, Fraxinus rotundifolia, and Populus alba have finally been selected.

11- Line 203 - Criterion 1 does not make sense. Do you mean 'appropriateness'?

Yes, I do. I changed it to “appropriateness”.

12- Line 286 - The insertion of the quote defining 'synergy' is quite out of place.

Synergy definition has been deleted.

13- Line 291 - Conclusion is very weak, lacking substance. Needs to be re-written.

Conclusion has changed to:

This paper presents a novel way for considering visual features in roadsides design. The key finding is that cone of vision would practically be a solution to situations where third dimension plays a key role in addressing safety issues and applying two-dimensional practices would not be adequate. This method can be used to manage drivers’ field of view in terms of what should or should not be seen in each view frame. The study emphasizes the importance of mathematical calculations which should be integrated with 2d and 3d modeling of a landscape design. Solving not only safety-related matters but aesthetic problems, such technique could affect people’s behavior and perception in terms of roadside beauty, which could be a future topic of research.

‘Planted, non-native species’ most of which are invasive have widely been used in road landscape design in Iran during recent years. The findings of this paper show that opting for native species could be a far better substitution as it can a) help drivers to feel attached to their driving space as those plants integrate with surrounding green areas, b) enhance the richness of green resources, and c) contribute to sustainable landscapes on a broad scale.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, but the structure needs to be clearer. The methodology, results, discussion and conclusion section need improvement. 

English language is an issue on how the paper is perceived. 

Please see attachment for the detailed comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you for your comments and time. We have revised according to your comments and have highlighted our changes. In the following is our response to your comments.

Introduction:

1- In addition, the introduction does not mention clearly the scope of the research and how the investigation will progress.

Last part has changed to:

Current research has been derived from first comprehensive road landscape research, entitled “Road Landscape Master Plan Project in Iran” whose output comprises of worldwide survey, regulations and guidelines on beautification, safety, and vegetation. The primary objective of this paper is to optimize safety level via road landscape design in a dangerous spot, with concentration on green resources so as to serve both people and roadside environment. The scale of the research is restricted to one dangerous bend and plant composition has been planned for this area. What is not considered in the study is psychological consequences and changes in road users’ behavior after the application of green design.

2- Title has changed to Green Resources for Safety Improvement and Sustainable Landscape Design

3- Line 29: I checked the word in Longman dictionary as: inasmuch as, but I asked our proof reader to check it again.

4- Line 37: ‘s’ at the end of accident has been removed.

5- Line 37: ‘road landscape’ has been removed from this paragraph. Explanation has been added, where it appears for the first time.

More Information- Road Landscape definition based on Service d'études techniques des routes et autoroutes - Sétra : ‘Road landscape’ consists of the “ribbon” of the road and the road equipment (horizontal and vertical signing, safety barriers, grass verge or hard shoulder, ditches, slopes, plantations of various types, etc.) as seen from the road. It is difficult to dissociate the road landscape from its immediate environment.

6- Line 38: ‘roads should be planned in a way easily perceptible’ has been rephrased.

7- Line 40-41: Explanation on ‘Research shows that landscape “reading” influences the driver’s behavior, which can also affect safety’:

In other words, road landscape should be easily decoded to enable users to identify the location, and easily anticipate the events (traffic, pedestrian, etc.), which they may face so that they can modify their behavior accordingly [8].

8- Line 45: What road situation?

The sentence has changed to:

Based on a road situation-road with scenic views in safe spots, unsightly landscapes, and dangerous spots with distracting views-it is suggested to manage drivers’ visibility in order to frame, impose restrictions on or omit some frames of their views [10].

9- Line 61: ‘studies’ has been corrected.

10- Literature: The literature provided in introduction is not sufficient. Consider adding a dedicated literature section or a subsection on the introduction.

Literature has changed to:

In this regard, literature reveals some analysis of road safety in relation to landscape design. Dharmasena and Edirisooriya (2018) focused on landscape spatial characteristics particularly solidity and degree of enclosure and scale of the space in Sri Lanka. Analysis was based on recorded accident data and a live recording of a driving experience in black-spots identified. The research demonstrates that variation in both high and low pro-file of enclosure is minimum in study areas, leading to monotony and finally drivers’ low performance [11]. Another paper investigated 10 highways located in Shandong province in China. Introducing new concept of revegetation design in highway roadside and median green belts, the study aims to reduce drivers’ visual fatigue and the following serious consequences. Based on the theory of dynamic vision, formulas are presented to compute the stake numbers of setting or removing green belts and the maximum length of green belt according to the requirements of landscape and safety [12]. Some manuals and re-ports, could also be found which concentrate on the role of landscape designers in safety analysis process [13], determining correlation between landscape and safety [14]. As regard visual tools, one scholar has worked on the application of cone of vision and isovist, a flat geometric shape that resembles the field of view, to enhance the use of plan drawing representation [15]. Here, the exact use of cone of vision and implication of its mathematical calculations in landscape design leaves a critical gap in knowledge. 

Research on vegetation, safety, and environment have been conducted as well.  Main Roads Western Australia (2013) considers vegetation as an alternative together with built walls and fences, earth bunds, temporary visual screens, and acoustic barriers or noise walls to screen views where a potential visual distraction occurs within the drivers’ field of view. It has highlighted that visual screens must be designed in a way to meet all safety considerations, provide an effective level of screening, minimize maintenance requirements, and provide a cost-effective solution for the site conditions [16]. Another effort was made across the United States (2003) to systematically assess public preferences for built and natural features in urban freeway roadsides. Results show that drivers most preferred settings which have tree plantings that screen adjacent land uses [17]. This can be endorsed by previous studies by Kaplan and colleagues (1972 & 1989), stating that people show a big preference for scenes with vegetation rather than scenes with man-made structures [18,19]. Between 2004 and 2011, a survey had been carried out in Poland, using road accident statistical analyses which include environmental factors such as driving into a tree, hitting an animal, rainfall, snowfall, blinding sun and strong gusts of wind. Findings illustrate that roadside vegetation positively affect road safety in many ways, while it can pose danger to road users if it is not properly designed and located [20]. Positive effects of road vegetation is not only restricted to curbing accidents but also related to environmental benefits entailing wind velocities, soil stabilization, water quality and infiltration, and biodiversity [21,22].

In Iran, first step of studying road landscape traces back to 1991 when Pirnia pointed to geographical, commercial and intangible and cultural factors which have influenced road landscapes since bygone eras [23]. Another historical study has been conducted which highlights how ancient roads affected urban and regional development [24]. As far as environment is concerned, contemporary research mostly focus on environmental degradation and adverse effects of road construction on natural landscapes [25] and road landscape green areas design and vegetation [26]. Safety issues have scarcely been studied in relation to landscape. Existing literature focuses only on characteristics of vegetation layer decreasing safety level, which should be avoided in plant selection [3], and it also discusses road components namely barriers, panels, and walls which would act as a safety booster [27,28]. What seems to be missing in all aforesaid studies is considering soft and hard road features and their measures in landscape design based on road safety conditions.

Materials and Methods:

11- A broader introduction to methodology is needed.

This part and a flowchart has been added:

Based on the flowchart (Figure 4), adopted steps in this research are as follows: in the first step, field survey and observations have been conducted so that researchers became acquainted with the study area context, scenic views, and field of vision of road users. Afterwards, library research has been carried out to form a comprehensive literature review on the topic and methods used in calculation of sight distance and road object dimensions. Having studied current method and based on a knowledge gap in this field, re-searchers suggested cone of vision formulas to determine size of sight obstruction. To maintain sustainability in landscape design, a pallet of native plants has been selected which are finally presented in a plan and section.

Figure 4 Flowchart

12- Lines 80-86: How is this methods? It has been suggested by whom? The study or the literature? Is this past practice or part of the methodology?

This part has changed to:

As a conventional method, use of sight triangle can be witnessed in past experiences. Among first practices, intersection sight distance design is presented in The AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Green Book (1994), which considers “intersection sight distance to be adequate when drivers at or approaching an intersection have an unobstructed view of the entire intersection and of sufficient lengths of the intersecting highways to permit the drivers to anticipate and avoid potential collisions” [29]. Sight triangle method has further been suggested to avoid accidents particularly in junctions where vehicles are moving in intersecting roads. For instance, sight triangle equations and calculation have been introduced in a retrofit setting in order to address safety and operational concerns and to design facilities and site plans, which will reduce risk of drivers and cyclists [30]. This notion is a non-barrier surface, which is formed by each road extension, along drivers’ line-of-sight. In this right triangle, the hypotenuse is drawn from one vehicle to the other one, both of which are moving toward the junction. Two other sides of the triangle would be along the main and secondary roads, crossing each other at the junction [31].

13- Lines 89-95: Inadequate English

This part has been rewritten:

As regards Figure 5, sight triangle is a two-dimensional method. This horizontal restriction is cited in past research as a deficiency which needs to incorporate vertical factors [32]. Additionally, this method will not allow road users to recognize forms, texts, and colors used in road elements. To counteract the issue, an approach is defined, applying cone of vision equations to design areas in which one can see stopped or moving vehicles and natural and built elements.

Discussion:

14- Whilst the first paragraph of the discussion gives us an interesting introduction, the following paragraphs miss the broader concept. They focus on past examples and literature but without making the link with this study.

This part has been rewritten:

The main drive of this research can be interpreted by findings of Gue and colleagues which cite drivers are more likely to pay attention to other moving and stationary targets rather than road conditions in open landscapes [44] such as Lashgarak road’s, leading to considerable vehicle trajectory fluctuations. It is claimed that the more landscape is pleasant, beautiful, harmonious, natural, and elements match surrounding environment, the more car accidents happen and the more road landscape is visually safe and sophisticated, the less car accidents occur [45]. In Tehran-Dizin road study, researchers has sought a method which changes natural, pleasant and also hazardous landscape into safe and locally harmonious one by introducing a green barrier. This can be interpreted by Mok and colleagues stating that there is a correlation between landscape treatments and a reduction in accident rates, which illustrates that landscape along roadside has a positive effect on drivers’ perception and behavior [46].

Regarding green barrier, results indicate that crown density, root penetration and height of species are important factors for plant material to meet safety, economic and environmental requirements of a landscape design. Based on this, three native species have been chosen, accustomed to local climate and soil conditions so that costs, maintenance, and water consumption are minimized [47], and soil erosion, landslides and slope instability decrease. Use of native plants can also be beneficial in conserving green resources as it would reestablish native ecosystem and provide a natural look to roadsides [47]. This is consistent with Lucey and Barton research, scrutinizing the evolution of roadside land-scape and different approaches towards vegetation management from past eras to to-date strategies. Current strategies for sustainable roadside vegetation embrace integrated de-sign approach in order to reduce expenditure, minimize maintenance, incorporate regionally appropriate species, and use context-sensitive solutions. These solutions result in preservation of scenic and environmental resources, while keeping safety along transportation corridors. The paper shows how vegetation serves sustainability by focusing on economic, social, and environmental benefits [21]. Such benefits consist of improved socioeconomic health, cost savings and safety, better water quality, hydraulic conductivity, erosion control, and increased biodiversity.

In road landscape studies, different methods consisting of correlation and regression analysis [45], descriptive analysis, statistical tests [44], documentary research, questionnaire survey, Semantic Differential (SD) method- a psychological testing method, using a verbal scale to find out psychological feeling [48], case study, and library survey analysis were employed. In this research, the before-and-after simulation (Figure 12 a & b) equips designers with a method to examine the hypothesis that the reliance of road landscape design on cone of vision and trigonometric calculations could positively affect crash rates and the environment. It is recommended that in further research, crash data associated with landscape of road bends along Lashgarak road would be investigated via a bilateral cooperation between landscape architects and traffic safety engineers to identify visual distractions resulted in serious injuries.

15- Line 272: to-date – clarify

This part has been added:

Current strategies for sustainable roadside vegetation embrace integrated design approach in order to reduce expenditure, minimize maintenance, incorporate regionally appropriate species, and use context-sensitive solutions. These solutions result in preservation of scenic and environmental resources, while keeping safety along transportation corridors.

16- Line 272: ‘The paper shows how vegetation serves sustainability’ – how does it do that?

This part has changed to:

The paper shows how vegetation serves sustainability by focusing on economic, social, and environmental benefits [21]. Such benefits consist of improved socioeconomic health, cost savings and safety, better water quality, hydraulic conductivity, erosion control, and increased biodiversity.

Conclusion:

17- The conclusions are not strong enough.

Conclusion has changed to:

This paper presents a novel way for considering visual features in roadsides design. The key finding is that cone of vision would practically be a solution to situations where third dimension plays a key role in addressing safety issues and applying two-dimensional practices would not be adequate. This method can be used to manage drivers’ field of view in terms of what should or should not be seen in each view frame. The study emphasizes the importance of mathematical calculations which should be integrated with 2d and 3d modeling of a landscape design. Solving not only safety-related matters but aesthetic problems, such technique could affect people’s behavior and perception in terms of roadside beauty, which could be a future topic of research.

‘Planted, non-native species’ most of which are invasive have widely been used in road landscape design in Iran during recent years. The findings of this paper show that opting for native species could be a far better substitution as it can a) help drivers to feel attached to their driving space as those plants integrate with surrounding green areas, b) enhance the richness of green resources, and c) contribute to sustainable landscapes on a broad scale.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments:

The manuscript deals application of cone of vision formulas to calculate measures of landscape green features to improve road safety in Iran. Although I appreciated the work of the authors, some major caveats are mentioned below.

Specific Comments:

1. The introduction does not provide a good, generalized background of the topic that gives the reader an appreciation of the application for these methods worldwide. To make the introduction more substantial, the authors may wish to provide references to existing related research in this area in other countries.
2. P1, L34; P9, L275: PIARC and SD acronyms should be totally described when first mentioned.
3. P2, L50: “(…) Jia (…)”. ??. Please introduce the corresponding reference number next to the author’s name.
4. Generally, figures are not easy to read. Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 e 14 were not cited in the main text. Figure 2 may be improved by introducing a legend. The resolution of Figures 6 and 9 is very poor. Regarding Figure 7, the authors may want to introduce legend, scale, and north arrow.
5. P3, L115: Mathematical components are not formatted.
6. I suggest the authors to restructure the Results Section as some description of the study area and methods are presented here.
7. P9, L273: “The paper shows how vegetation serves sustain ability by focusing on economic, social, and environmental benefits [42]”. P9, L288: “In this way, a macro-scale approach shall be suggested, acting as an umbrella under which concepts of road landscape design are subsumed.” Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on these arguments.
8. For better understanding of the methodology, I suggest inserting a flowchart.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you for your comments and time. We have revised according to your comments and have highlighted our changes. In the following is our response to your comments.

1. The introduction does not provide a good, generalized background of the topic that gives the reader an appreciation of the application for these methods worldwide. To make the introduction more substantial, the authors may wish to provide references to existing related research in this area in other countries.

Background has changed to:

In this regard, literature reveals some analysis of road safety in relation to landscape design. Dharmasena and Edirisooriya (2018) focused on landscape spatial characteristics particularly solidity and degree of enclosure and scale of the space in Sri Lanka. Analysis was based on recorded accident data and a live recording of a driving experience in black-spots identified. The research demonstrates that variation in both high and low pro-file of enclosure is minimum in study areas, leading to monotony and finally drivers’ low performance [11]. Another paper investigated 10 highways located in Shandong province in China. Introducing new concept of revegetation design in highway roadside and median green belts, the study aims to reduce drivers’ visual fatigue and the following serious consequences. Based on the theory of dynamic vision, formulas are presented to compute the stake numbers of setting or removing green belts and the maximum length of green belt according to the requirements of landscape and safety [12]. Some manuals and re-ports, could also be found which concentrate on the role of landscape designers in safety analysis process [13], determining correlation between landscape and safety [14]. As regard visual tools, one scholar has worked on the application of cone of vision and isovist, a flat geometric shape that resembles the field of view, to enhance the use of plan drawing representation [15]. Here, the exact use of cone of vision and implication of its mathematical calculations in landscape design leaves a critical gap in knowledge. 

Research on vegetation, safety, and environment have been conducted as well.  Main Roads Western Australia (2013) considers vegetation as an alternative together with built walls and fences, earth bunds, temporary visual screens, and acoustic barriers or noise walls to screen views where a potential visual distraction occurs within the drivers’ field of view. It has highlighted that visual screens must be designed in a way to meet all safety considerations, provide an effective level of screening, minimize maintenance requirements, and provide a cost-effective solution for the site conditions [16]. Another effort was made across the United States (2003) to systematically assess public preferences for built and natural features in urban freeway roadsides. Results show that drivers most preferred settings which have tree plantings that screen adjacent land uses [17]. This can be endorsed by previous studies by Kaplan and colleagues (1972 & 1989), stating that people show a big preference for scenes with vegetation rather than scenes with man-made structures [18,19]. Between 2004 and 2011, a survey had been carried out in Poland, using road accident statistical analyses which include environmental factors such as driving into a tree, hitting an animal, rainfall, snowfall, blinding sun and strong gusts of wind. Findings illustrate that roadside vegetation positively affect road safety in many ways, while it can pose danger to road users if it is not properly designed and located [20]. Positive effects of road vegetation is not only restricted to curbing accidents but also related to environmental benefits entailing wind velocities, soil stabilization, water quality and infiltration, and biodiversity [21,22].

In Iran, first step of studying road landscape traces back to 1991 when Pirnia pointed to geographical, commercial and intangible and cultural factors which have influenced road landscapes since bygone eras [23]. Another historical study has been conducted which highlights how ancient roads affected urban and regional development [24]. As far as environment is concerned, contemporary research mostly focus on environmental degradation and adverse effects of road construction on natural landscapes [25] and road landscape green areas design and vegetation [26]. Safety issues have scarcely been studied in relation to landscape. Existing literature focuses only on characteristics of vegetation layer decreasing safety level, which should be avoided in plant selection [3], and it also discusses road components namely barriers, panels, and walls which would act as a safety booster [27,28]. What seems to be missing in all aforesaid studies is considering soft and hard road features and their measures in landscape design based on road safety conditions.

1. P1, L34; P9, L275: PIARC and SD acronyms should be totally described when first mentioned.

Description of PIARC and SD have been added to the manuscript. PIARC stands for Permanent International Association of Road Congresses. SD stands for Semantic Differential.

1. P2, L50: “(…) Jia (…)”. ??. Please introduce the corresponding reference number next to the author’s name.

The sentence has completely changed.

1. Generally, figures are not easy to read. Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 e 14 were not cited in the main text. Figure 2 may be improved by introducing a legend. The resolution of Figures 6 and 9 is very poor. Regarding Figure 7, the authors may want to introduce legend, scale, and north arrow.

Some unnecessary figures have been removed.

Regarding Figure 2, an explanation has been added: a and b respectively define vertical and horizontal distances (y and x axes) of decision points of two drivers moving toward a junction.

We introduced scale and north arrow for figure 7.

All figures have been cited in the text.

Quality of all figures have increased.

1. P3, L115: Mathematical components are not formatted.

Format of mathematical components have changed to that of resources.

1. I suggest the authors to restructure the Results Section as some description of the study area and methods are presented here.

Figure 9 which presented the dimensions of the study area has been removed. In the Result Section the application of suggested method on study area plus primary information on vegetation selection can be seen. We need the information here because it is immediately followed by plant names.

1. P9, L273: “The paper shows how vegetation serves sustainability by focusing on economic, social, and environmental benefits [42]”. P9, L288: “In this way, a macro-scale approach shall be suggested, acting as an umbrella under which concepts of road landscape design are subsumed.” Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on these arguments.

More explanation to P9, L273: The paper shows how vegetation serves sustainability by focusing on economic, social, and environmental benefits [21]. Such benefits consist of improved socioeconomic health, cost savings and safety, better water quality, hydraulic conductivity, erosion control, and increased biodiversity.

More explanation to P9, L288: In a more detail, Tehran-Dizin Road includes a number of dangerous bends whose landscape characteristics vary. In this case, a holistic management plan is required to assess landscape features, level of visibility, and safety in different spots in order to develop comprehensive strategies which would lead to integrated design concepts.

1. For better understanding of the methodology, I suggest inserting a flowchart.

A flowchart has been added:

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Significant effort has been made from the authors to improve the manuscript. 

There are still parts where more information could be given, but avoiding repetition. I think minor errors could be improved with another read and a closer look, before publication. 

Author Response

Dear Professor, Thank you for your time and kind feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations! I have no further comments to make. 

Author Response

Dear Professor, Thank you for your time and kind feedback.