An Adaptive Selection of Urban Construction Projects: A Multi-Stage Model with Iterative Supercriterion Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a multi-stage adaptive method for urban construction project selection, which is innovative and practical, and experimental verification shows the effectiveness of the method. Although there are some limitations, with further research and improvement, it is expected to be more widely used in the field of urban construction and management. Therefore, I propose a major revision to this article and hope that the author can further improve and improve the article according to the above suggestions.

1.Clarify research assumptions and boundary conditions. In the introduction of the research method, although the steps of the multi-stage adaptive method are described in detail, the specific scenarios and assumptions applicable to the method are not clearly pointed out. For example, does the selection of urban construction projects assume that all projects are carried out in similar economic and policy environments? Are possible interdependencies between different projects considered?

It is suggested to clearly list the assumptions and boundary conditions applicable to the method in the "Research methods" section, such as project independence hypothesis, data integrity hypothesis, etc. At the same time, the possible influence of these hypotheses on the research results and how to verify the validity of these hypotheses in practical applications are discussed.

2.Enhance the theoretical basis and interpretation of the logarithmic model. The logarithmic model proposed in this paper is used to identify the weight function of retrospective standard, but although the mathematical form of the model is clear, it lacks in-depth explanation of the theoretical basis of the model. For example, why choose logarithmic functions over other types of functions to represent weights? How do parameters in the model, such as α and ε, affect the results of the weight function?

It is suggested to add a detailed discussion of the theoretical basis of the model, including the reasons for choosing the logarithmic function, the economic significance of the parameters, and the statistical assumptions of the model, in the section "Logarithmic Model". At the same time, it is suggested to show the influence of parameter change on the weight function through sensitivity analysis to enhance the reliability of the model.

3.Add more case studies or comparative analyses. This paper only takes a housing construction project in western Ukraine as an example for experimental verification. Although it can demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, it lacks comparative analysis with other regions or different types of projects, so it is difficult to prove the universality and adaptability of the method.

It is suggested to add more regional case studies in the "experimental verification" section, or to compare and analyze with other existing multi-criteria decision-making methods (such as AHP, TOPSIS, etc.). Through comparison, the advantages and limitations of the proposed method in different scenarios are shown, so as to enhance the persuasive power of the research.

 

4.It is suggested that the author supplement the latest research results,  such as Does the opening of high-speed rails improve urban carbon efficiency?  Evidence from a spatial difference-in-difference method;  The Bright Side of Uncertainty: The Impact of Climate Policy Uncertainty on Urban Green Total Factor Energy Efficiency;  The bright side of uncertainty: The impact of climate policy uncertainty on urban green total factor energy efficiency;  Forging a path to sustainability: The impact of Fintech on corporate ESG performance; From risk to sustainable opportunity: Does climate risk perception lead firm ESG performance?  ; Unlocking carbon reduction potential of digital trade:   Evidence from China’s comprehensive cross-border e-commerce pilot zones

5.Add discussion of project ranking function. The paper points out that the method does not provide project ranking, only a potentially effective project can be selected. In practical applications, however, decision makers may need to rank multiple items for a more complete evaluation and comparison.

It is suggested to add a discussion on the lack of item ranking functionality in the "Discussion" section. This paper discusses whether project ranking can be achieved by extension or improvement under the framework of existing methods. For example, could a sorting mechanism based on overstandard scores be introduced, or combined with other sorting methods to complement the current approach?

6.Detail the data processing and preprocessing steps. The article mentioned the use of retrospective data for analysis in the experimental part, but did not elaborate on the source of data, the collection process, and the pre-processing steps. For example, how do you deal with missing data, outliers and data standardization?

It is recommended to add a special section in the "Experimental validation" section detailing the data processing and preprocessing steps. It includes data source, collection method, missing value processing, outlier detection and data standardization. This will help readers better understand the reliability of the experimental results.

7.Discuss the limitations of the method and future research directions. Some limitations of the method are mentioned in the "conclusion", but the discussion is brief and the future research direction is not planned in detail.

It is suggested to add a detailed discussion on the limitations of the method in the "Conclusion" section, including data dependency, lack of item ranking function, and treatment of continuous criteria. At the same time, the direction of future research is proposed, such as how to improve the logarithmic model, how to expand the method to adapt to more types of project selection problems, and how to combine artificial intelligence technology to further optimize the decision-making process. This will help readers understand the future trends in this field of research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and presentation of our materials.

Enclosed herewith, you will find:

(a) My comprehensive point-by-point response to your comments detailed below.

(b) An updated manuscript accompanied by color highlighting to signify the implemented changes.

Thank you for your continued support and constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and presentation of our materials.

Enclosed herewith, you will find:

(a) My comprehensive point-by-point response to your comments detailed below.

(b) An updated manuscript accompanied by color highlighting to signify the implemented changes.

Thank you for your continued support and constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper develops a multi-stage adaptive method to address the problem of selecting investment projects in urban construction. The authors aim to overcome the limitations of traditional methods considering regional peculiarities of conducting economic activity.  Overall, the manuscript is well written. The proposed methodology is verified through a case application and is innovative. This study provides a rational approach to project selection and new insights into MCDM fields in solving real-life problems. It has practical implications for enhancing urban construction management and ensuring sustainable development. Here are a few minor issues identified for author’s consideration: 

1. The Introduction section can briefly introduce the proposed multi-stage methods to enable readers better understand the innovation of the research. For example, the 3^rd paragraph on page 2 can be extended to elaborate the methods/steps.
2. On page 6, lines 271-272, “The following condition must be met:”, however, the specific condition is not explained.
3. To better structure the paper, the title of subsections 3.3 to 3.6 can better align with the multi-stage model. For example: 3.2.1 stage 0: Logarithmic model ...; 3.2.2 stage 1: Procedure for ...; 3.2.3 stage 2: Model of multi-criteria selection...; 3.2.4 stage 3: Method of iterative reduction...
4. The first sentence of section 4.1 is incomplete (page 11, line 441).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your invaluable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and presentation of our materials.

Enclosed herewith, you will find:

(a) My comprehensive point-by-point response to your comments detailed below.

(b) An updated manuscript accompanied by color highlighting to signify the implemented changes.

Thank you for your continued support and constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the article has been improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all of my comments.