Evaluating Traffic Control Parameters: From Efficiency to Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The wide scope of this paper includes almost everything in traffic control and management studies, and involving traffic signal control, traffic flow estimation/prediction, v2x, yolo and cutting-edge AI algorithms and modelling problems, which I feel difficult to find the most important contributions of this work. The proposed performance index variables are part of the whole metrics, and concluded results are based on subjective analysis without quantitative testification. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moreover, please carefully proofread throughout and check typos, for example, line 641, “… and simulated in SUMMO” would be “…SUMO”.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and the Reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of our article.

The manuscript has been significantly reorganized to improve clarity and coherence. The new structure ensures a logical progression from methodology to framework and analysis, reducing redundancy. Additionally, a detailed methodology section has been added to clarify the research process and the development of key tables.

A point-by-point response to each Reviewer’s comments follows.

REVIEWER Response

 

The wide scope of this paper includes almost everything in traffic control and management studies, and involving traffic signal control, traffic flow estimation/prediction, v2x, yolo and cutting-edge AI algorithms and modelling problems,...

 

Comment 1. 

...which I feel difficult to find the most important contributions of this work

Response: 

As the reviewer comments, the contributions were not clear. To emphasize them, text has been added or changed in various places in the article. More specifically:

- In the Abstract, the text "The study’s contributions include a practical five-level framework for traffic optimisation addressing congestion problems, the identification of 19 commonly used traffic control parameters, the analysis of their implementations in recent intelligent traffic control systems, and a proposal of trends to orient these parameters towards efficiency and compliance with the SDGs" has been included.

- In the new "Methodology" section, both the figure and the text highlight that the "Frameworks" explained below are the result of each of the phases carried out. The "Result Framework" column in Figure 3 highlights the contributions that have been explained in the Abstract.

- In the Conclusions section, we added the text “This study has identified control framework elements, key traffic control parameters influencing traffic flow optimization, their alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and current states and trends.

The findings demonstrate that parameters selected to input and evaluate control algorithms, such as average waiting time, fuel consumption, and emissions, are crucial to assessing the effectiveness of various traffic management strategies.”

 

Comment 2. 

The proposed performance index variables are part of the whole metrics

Response: 

Indeed, the proposed performance index variables are part of the entire metric, so in the new methodology section we have attempted to disambiguate this aspect.

 

Comment 3. 

Concluded results are based on subjective analysis without quantitative testification.

Response: 

As the reviewer comments, without the methodology section, and some added details, such as the heat map, the results can be considered an opinion. As the entire process leading to the characterization of the traffic problem, the selection of parameters and their relational analysis has been detailed, we hope that we have laid a solid foundation for the conclusions shown in the article.

 

Comment 4. 

Moreover, please carefully proofread throughout and check typos, for example, line 641, “… and simulated in SUMMO” would be “…SUMO”.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We have carefully proofread the manuscript and corrected typos, including the mistake "SUMMO", which has been corrected to "SUMO".

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. After reading it carefully, I kindly ask them to address the following issues:

1. The abstract should mention the most significant findings of their work.

2. Lines 23-24: Please clarify whether the reduction in pollution levels was related to reduced traffic volumes. If yes, can you provide the percentage?

3. Line 39. "...in Figure 1 where the X-axis" must be replaced as "in Figure 1 where the X-axis"

4. Lines 40-53. The concept of traffic signal optimization is solid. However, it can be applied in cases where the primary road arteries are not oversaturated. Moreover, you describe the concept of "green waves" by increasing the green light time at multiple intersections. However, keep in mind that as the green light time at these intersections will increase, the red light time at the intersecting roads will reduce, creating queues that can become long enough to interact with the closest intersections, creating congestion phenomena to them.

5. Lines 54-94. Provide relevant references of cases for each one of the five levels of urban traffic control.

6. I suggest replacing Table 1 with a heat table. Each one of these levels of urban traffic control does not contribute in the same way to addressing each one of the mentioned causes. This heat table should be based on a solid scientific methodology (for example, an AHP addressed to experts).

7. Line 117: "...table 2" must be rephrased as "...Table 2.".

8. Lines 124-128: Public health can also be improved by the fact that by mitigating congestion phenomena, air pollution can be reduced, as vehicles (especially goods vehicles) emit more carbon while idling, as well as in stop-and-go traffic.

9. Lines 137-141: Please consider upgrading Goal 12 from M to H. Here, I must mention that the authors must clarify that the results of Table 2 present their opinion and that they are not the result of an AHP, which could objectify them. 

10. Lines 141-145: The same for Goal 13; I suggest the authors consider upgrading it from H to VH.

11. Line 164: "...Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (I2V) 3 communication.". Please address the issue with number 3.

12. At the end of the introduction, authors should describe the manuscript's structure per section.

13. "Table 3 shows the parameters that have been found and used in the different papers and their acronyms.". I can see the references of these papers. They must be added, and there are many papers researching these topics.

14. Line 261: Out of the sudden, the first reference in Section 2, State of the Art review, is number [51]. Equation 1 must be referred to the text with its reference. Moreover, each term of an equation must be explained and described.

15. Line 280: "and user experience. [54] Like ATT,  must become "and user experience [54]. Like ATT, the".

16. I do not understand the meaning of subsection 2.1, Main parameters. It is clearly not part of a literature review. 

17. I suggest subjection 2.2 Main parameters and SDGs be replaced by a table. 

18. Section 2 is not a state-of-the-art review. This section must be written from scratch. Judging by the fact that the references in section 2 are numbered after those in section 3, I can estimate that it was added after section 3 was written.

19. References must be numbered successively as presented in the text. Throughout the manuscript, references do not follow this rule.

20. Line 633: A sentence cannot start with a reference. If it is necessary, the authors must be mentioned appropriately, and then the number of the reference follows. "[36] presents a method for estimating" must be rephrased as "Ma et al. [36] present a method for estimating.".

21. Subsection 3.1 Traffic management is the real state-of-the-art literature review. 

22. Line 789: "As per [48].". Read comment 20 and adjust accordingly.

23. I suggest the authors add respective references to subsection 3.2. .

24. Section 5 is in fact a repetition of parts of the manuscript rephrased. Furthermore, the authors do not mention any limitations in their approach as well as future research. 

25. Please read the authors guidelines and check the journal's template. Overall, there is a degree of repetition, particularly concerning the relationship between traffic optimization and SDGs. It is not clear which methodology was used for developing Tables 1, 2, and 5. The manuscript needs to be restructured significantly. The paper offers a detailed and forward-thinking perspective on traffic control optimization and its role in sustainable urban development, but it needs to refine its focus, reduce redundancy, and incorporate practical examples that could serve as valuable resources for policymakers and urban planners. Furthermore, authors should explain how their findings can contribute to achieving SDGs, because the manuscript in its existing form does not provide real, applicable, scalable results. 

I suggest the authors reconsider their approach and rebuild the manuscript. The main idea is good, but it needs to be properly developed and presented in order to justify its innovation and contribution.    

 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and the Reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of our article.

The manuscript has been significantly reorganized to improve clarity and coherence. The new structure ensures a logical progression from methodology to framework and analysis, reducing redundancy. Additionally, a detailed methodology section has been added to clarify the research process and the development of key tables.

 

REVIEWER Response

I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. After reading it carefully, I kindly ask them to address the following issues:

 

Comment 1.

The abstract should mention the most significant findings of their work.

Response: 

Indeed, it is important that the abstract shows the contributions, consequently we have added the following text in the abstract: "The study’s contributions include a practical five-level framework for traffic optimisation addressing congestion problems, the identification of 19 commonly used traffic control parameters, the analysis of their implementations in recent intelligent traffic control systems, and a proposal of trends to orient these parameters towards efficiency and compliance with the SDGs".

Comment 2.

Lines 23-24: Please clarify whether the reduction in pollution levels was related to reduced traffic volumes. If yes, can you provide the percentage?

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. This has been clarified in the manuscript, and the percentage reduction has been provided based on the relevant data. Lines 27-30

 

Comment 3.

Line 39. "...in Figure 1 where the X-axis" must be replaced as "in Figure 1 where the X-axis".

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We have corrected "Figure" to ensure it is consistently capitalized throughout the manuscript. Line 221

 

Comment 4.

Lines 40-53. The concept of traffic signal optimization is solid. However, it can be applied in cases where the primary road arteries are not oversaturated. Moreover, you describe the concept of "green waves" by increasing the green light time at multiple intersections. However, keep in mind that as the green light time at these intersections will increase, the red light time at the intersecting roads will reduce, creating queues that can become long enough to interact with the closest intersections, creating congestion phenomena to them.

Response: 

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have addressed this by explicitly acknowledging the potential drawbacks of "green waves". The revised text clarifies that increasing green light durations at certain intersections may lead to queue formations on crossing roads, which, if excessive, could spill over into adjacent intersections and induce new congestion patterns. Balancing benefits across the entire network in signal optimization strategies has also been emphasized.  Lines 230-237

 

Comment 5.

Lines 54-94. Provide relevant references of cases for each one of the five levels of urban traffic control.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We have added relevant references for each of the five levels of urban traffic control, ensuring that appropriate case studies and research findings support each concept. Lines 249-305

 

Comment 6.

I suggest replacing Table 1 with a heat table. Each one of these levels of urban traffic control does not contribute in the same way to addressing each one of the mentioned causes. This heat table should be based on a solid scientific methodology (for example, an AHP addressed to experts).

Response: 

This comment was really excellent and one of the key comments for improving the article. Both the heatmap and the entire explanation have been added. Lines 310 - 368

In addition, with the heatmap results we have discovered why we do not easily locate articles aimed at resolving (last column on the right in the heatmap) congestion. In the focus groups we carried out, traffic officers told us many of their actions were to resolve traffic jams. We looked for information about "resolving" control algorithms, but they were not located. Obviously, the role of sensors, for example, traffic flow or indicators such as Average Waiting Time, are not useful if the traffic jam has already formed. The heatmap has corroborated this aspect, so we are very grateful to the reviewer for his excellent suggestion. 

 

Comment 7.

Line 117: "...table 2" must be rephrased as "...Table 2.".

Response: 

We have also corrected "Table" to ensure it is consistently capitalized throughout the manuscript.  Line 391

 

Comment 8.

Lines 124-128: Public health can also be improved by the fact that by mitigating congestion phenomena, air pollution can be reduced, as vehicles (especially goods vehicles) emit more carbon while idling, as well as in stop-and-go traffic.

Response: 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated this point into the manuscript by explicitly stating that reducing congestion alleviates stress and mitigates air pollution. The revised text clarifies that vehicles, particularly heavy goods transport, emit higher carbon levels during idling and stop-and-go traffic and that optimizing traffic flow significantly lowers emissions, improving air quality and public health. Line 419-424

 

Comment 9.

Lines 137-141: Please consider upgrading Goal 12 from M to H. Here, I must mention that the authors must clarify that the results of Table 2 present their opinion and that they are not the result of an AHP, which could objectify them.

Response: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree and have clarified that the values in Table 2 reflect the authors' qualitative assessment based on expertise and literature review.

Additionally, we acknowledge the relevance of upgrading Goal 12 from M to H, as efficient traffic management significantly contributes to responsible resource use. You are correct in pointing out the need to clarify "consumption." Initially, we used it in an economic sense. Still, we now recognize the importance of framing it within the context of sustainability and aligning with the SDGs. Table 2 and line 411

 

Comment 10.

Lines 141-145: The same for Goal 13; I suggest the authors consider upgrading it from H to VH.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We agree and have upgraded Goal 13 from H to VH. From our control engineering perspective, we initially focused on optimizing traffic flow and did not fully account for the broader ecological impact. However, we now recognize that reducing emissions plays a significant role in mitigating climate change. Table 2 and line 39

Comment 11.

Line 164: "...Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (I2V) 3 communication.". Please address the issue with number 3.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The number "3" issue has been corrected and now correctly references a figure in the manuscript. Lines 77-87

 

Comment 12.

At the end of the introduction, authors should describe the manuscript's structure per section.

Response: 

As the reviewer comments, we have proceeded to describe the article and its sections at the end of the introduction. Lines 132-145.

Comment 13.

"Table 3 shows the parameters that have been found and used in the different papers and their acronyms.". I can see the references of these papers. They must be added, and there are many papers researching these topics.

Response: 

We have added that the references to each parameter are explained and referenced in section 6 “Current States”, where a literature search of the current status will be made. Lines 452-453

 

Comment 14.

Line 261: Out of the sudden, the first reference in Section 2, State of the Art review, is number [51]. Equation 1 must be referred to the text with its reference. Moreover, each term of an equation must be explained and described.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The issue with the first reference in Section 2, State of the Art Review, has been corrected to ensure proper numbering consistency. Additionally, Equation (1) is now correctly referenced in the text, and each term within the Equation has been explicitly explained and described. Lines 482-491

 

Comment 15.

Line 280: "and user experience. [54] Like ATT, must become "and user experience [54]. Like ATT, the".

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The modification has been made as suggested. Line 512

 

Comment 16.

I do not understand the meaning of subsection 2.1, Main parameters. It is clearly not part of a literature review.

Response: 

Indeed, with the new structure of the article, which explains, in the methodology section, why these parameters have been included, we hope to have been able to demonstrate that they are the result of a systematic literature review and a detailed analysis to be able to detect similar parameters, etc.

 

Comment 17.

I suggest subjection 2.2 Main parameters and SDGs be replaced by a table.

Response: 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated a summary table for Main parameters and SDGs to enhance clarity and readability. Line 746

 

Comment 18.

Section 2 is not a state-of-the-art review. This section must be written from scratch. Judging by the fact that the references in section 2 are numbered after those in section 3, I can estimate that it was added after section 3 was written.

Response: 

We deeply appreciate the reviewer's comment on Section 2 and its position in the original structure of the paper. With the new structure adopted, we have completely rewritten Section 2, integrating it coherently and logically with the rest of the manuscript. We should also highlight that the reference numbering referred to by the reviewer has been revised and updated.

 

Comment 19.

References must be numbered successively as presented in the text. Throughout the manuscript, references do not follow this rule.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The references have been renumbered correctly. Previously, the numbering was not automated, but this issue has now been resolved.

 

Comment 20.

Line 633: A sentence cannot start with a reference. If it is necessary, the authors must be mentioned appropriately, and then the number of the reference follows. "[36] presents a method for estimating" must be rephrased as "Ma et al. [36] present a method for estimating."..

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The issue has been corrected, and references no longer start sentences. The suggested rephrasing has been applied throughout the manuscript.

It is done and marked in blue in all the places where we saw it was better to change it.

 

Comment 21.

Subsection 3.1 Traffic management is the real state-of-the-art literature review.

Response: 

Indeed, this section is the result of the "systematic literature review" part of the method used, so by including the methodology section and describing the review, we hope that it is now correctly located.

 

Comment 22.

Line 789: "As per [48].". Read comment 20 and adjust accordingly.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The issue has been corrected, and the reference has been appropriately rephrased following the guideline from Comment 20.

 

Comment 23.

I suggest the authors add respective references to subsection 3.2.

Response: 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the respective references to Subsection 3.2 to support the discussion and ensure proper citation of relevant studies. Lines 769-782

 

Comment 24.

Section 5 is in fact a repetition of parts of the manuscript rephrased. Furthermore, the authors do not mention any limitations in their approach as well as future research.

Response: 

We appreciate the reviewer's comment. Section 5 (now Section 8) has been rewritten to avoid repetition and explicitly address our approach's limitations and directions for future research.

 

Comment 25.

Please read the authors guidelines and check the journal's template. Overall, there is a degree of repetition, particularly concerning the relationship between traffic optimization and SDGs. It is not clear which methodology was used for developing Tables 1, 2, and 5. The manuscript needs to be restructured significantly. The paper offers a detailed and forward-thinking perspective on traffic control optimization and its role in sustainable urban development, but it needs to refine its focus, reduce redundancy, and incorporate practical examples that could serve as valuable resources for policymakers and urban planners. Furthermore, authors should explain how their findings can contribute to achieving SDGs, because the manuscript in its existing form does not provide real, applicable, scalable results.

I suggest the authors reconsider their approach and rebuild the manuscript. The main idea is good, but it needs to be properly developed and presented in order to justify its innovation and contribution.

Response: 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments and acknowledge the concerns regarding the manuscript's structure, repetition, and lack of practical examples. In response, we have undertaken a significant restructuring of the paper and introduced a detailed methodology section to address these points comprehensively. To clarify this aspect, we would like to highlight the following two key changes and improvements:

• Restructured Manuscript: The manuscript has been significantly restructured to enhance the flow and coherence of the content. The new structure provides a clear progression from the methodology, through the framework, to the analysis of current states and trends. This reorganization has eliminated much of the previous redundancy.
• Detailed Methodology Section: A new Section 2 has been added, which thoroughly outlines the methodology used in this study. This section clarifies the origin and development of Tables 1, 2 and 5 by explaining the different phases of the research process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper organizes the relationship between various indicators related to traffic control and the SDGs through a literature review and presents examples of evaluating these indicators. To further improve the quality of the paper, please consider revising the following points:

• Abstract: While the abstract states, “aiming to address congestion issues at their core and identify the most effective control parameters,” this study primarily lists major indicators through a literature review. It remains unclear whether the most effective indicators were identified. Please consider revising this expression.
• Line 54~: It is necessary to discuss why urban traffic control is enhanced through the five levels mentioned. Specifically, provide references that support these five levels as the basis. In addition, is it sufficient to limit the discussion to these five levels?
• Table 1: There is no explanation of Table 1 in the text. Additionally, what is the rationale behind the markings in Table 1?
• Table 2: If the evidence supports evaluating the relationship between urban traffic optimization and each SDG goal as shown in Table 2, please provide it.
• Table 3: The term “parameter” mentioned in Table 3 seems to refer to quantities observed from actual traffic conditions or derived from models. Therefore, the reviewer thinks a term like “evaluation index” is more appropriate.
• Table 3: Please provide the search criteria for the references cited to create Table 3.
• Citations: The numbering of references cited in the text is not in ascending order (e.g., in Line 261, the reference number jumps to 51). Please revise accordingly.
• Equation (4): Please explain how "MoveTime" is defined in Equation (4).
• Section 3.1: Please provide the search criteria for the references cited in Section 3.1. Additionally, since individual references organize the paragraphs in Section 3.1, consider rearranging them by grouping related references for better organization.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and the Reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of our article.

The manuscript has been significantly reorganized to improve clarity and coherence. The new structure ensures a logical progression from methodology to framework and analysis, reducing redundancy. Additionally, a detailed methodology section has been added to clarify the research process and the development of key tables.

 

REVIEWER Response

This paper organizes the relationship between various indicators related to traffic control and the SDGs through a literature review and presents examples of evaluating these indicators. To further improve the quality of the paper, please consider revising the following points:

 

Comment 1.

Abstract: While the abstract states, “aiming to address congestion issues at their core and identify the most effective control parameters,” this study primarily lists major indicators through a literature review. It remains unclear whether the most effective indicators were identified. Please consider revising this expression.

Response: 

As the reviewer comments, the abstract was ambiguous. We have redone the abstract, including the contributions, and taken into account the reviewer's comments. We hope that the new version of the abstract will be much clearer than the previous one.

 

Comment 2.

Line 54~: It is necessary to discuss why urban traffic control is enhanced through the five levels mentioned. Specifically, provide references that support these five levels as the basis. In addition, is it sufficient to limit the discussion to these five levels?

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We have added relevant references for each of the five levels of urban traffic control, ensuring that appropriate case studies and research findings support each concept.

We have expanded the discussion to clarify why urban traffic control is enhanced through the five levels mentioned and have included relevant references that support this framework as a structured approach to traffic management.

Regarding whether it is sufficient to limit the discussion to these five levels, this proposal is based on control engineering principles, which provide a systematic way to address congestion by categorizing strategies according to their level of intervention. While alternative classifications may exist, this structure offers a practical and scalable framework for traffic control decision-making. Lines 249-305

 

Comment 3.

Table 1: There is no explanation of Table 1 in the text. Additionally, what is the rationale behind the markings in Table 1?

Response: 

As the reviewer comments, the table was not well explained. In order to properly explain the table, we have created a heatmap instead of the table, and the entire explanation has been added. Lines 310 - 368

 

Comment 4.

Table 2: If the evidence supports evaluating the relationship between urban traffic optimization and each SDG goal as shown in Table 2, please provide it.

Response: 

We appreciate the reviewer's comment and understand the need to clarify the basis supporting the assessment of the relationship between urban traffic optimization and each SDG, as shown in Table 2. The assignment of contribution levels (from Very Low to Very High) in Table 2 was made through a qualitative assessment by the authors based on focus groups made and the review of the literature. This assessment is not based on direct quantitative data, but rather on an interpretation of the existing literature and an analysis of how traffic optimization impacts the sustainability goals.

 

Comment 5.

Table 3: The term “parameter” mentioned in Table 3 seems to refer to quantities observed from actual traffic conditions or derived from models. Therefore, the reviewer thinks a term like “evaluation index” is more appropriate.

 

Response: 

Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with the reviewer's observation and have replaced the term "parameter" with "evaluation index" in Table 3 and Table 6 (old Table 4) to better reflect the nature of the quantities observed and derived from models.

 

Comment 6.

Table 3: Please provide the search criteria for the references cited to create Table 3.

Response: 

Indeed, we have included many references and parameters, but we have not explained how they were obtained. The explanation has been added in lines 183-188. The added text is as follows:

“The Comprehensive Search consists of search in academic databases using keywords derived from Phase 1, such as "traffic optimisation," "traffic control parameters," "SDGs," "sustainable urban mobility," and "traffic sensors".

This search aimed to identify relevant studies on traffic optimisation and the control parameters they employ.

These terms have been searched in the scientific databases, making a temporal tracing in order to verify that the most recent references are valid and maintain coherence with the original reference.”

 

Comment 7.

Citations: The numbering of references cited in the text is not in ascending order (e.g., in Line 261, the reference number jumps to 51). Please revise accordingly.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. The references have been renumbered correctly. Previously, the numbering was not automated, but this issue has now been resolved.

 

Comment 8.

Equation (4): Please explain how "MoveTime" is defined in Equation (4).

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. We have added a definition for "MoveTime" which is the time a vehicle spends in motion. Lines 511-514

 

Comment 9.

Section 3.1: Please provide the search criteria for the references cited in Section 3.1. Additionally, since individual references organize the paragraphs in Section 3.1, consider rearranging them by grouping related references for better organization.

Response: 

A systematic literature review was conducted following the qualitative screening, which included two main steps. First, criteria were selected to ensure the quality and relevance of the included studies. These criteria focused on the feasibility of measurement with available traffic detection technologies, the impact on traffic efficiency, and the ability to assess the traffic management strategies implemented. Subsequently, a comprehensive search was conducted in academic databases using keywords related to traffic optimization, control parameters, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The main objective of this search was to identify relevant studies on traffic optimization and the control parameters employed, ensuring that the most recent references were valid and consistent with the original ones. Lines 170-188.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for addressing my comments and suggestions.

There are a few minor issues to be addressed.

1. Figure 1 should be mentioned before the Figure itself (Lines 47-49 before Figure 1).
2. Line 57: "Ass figure 1 shows" I suggest to be rephrazed as "As Figure 1 presents".
3. In Table 1a the sum of the relative weights is 99%. 

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Editor and the Reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which has led to a significant improvement in the quality of our article.

The manuscript has been significantly reorganized to improve clarity and coherence. The new structure ensures a logical progression from methodology to framework and analysis, reducing redundancy. Additionally, a detailed methodology section has been added to clarify the research process and the development of key tables.

 

Comment 1. 

Figure 1 should be mentioned before the Figure itself (Lines 47-49 before Figure 1).

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. This has been corrected.

Comment 2. 

Line 57: "Ass figure 1 shows" I suggest to be rephrazed as "As Figure 1 presents".

Response: 

Thank you again for your observation. This has been also corrected.

Comment 3. 

In Table 1a the sum of the relative weights is 99%.

Response: 

Thank you for your observation. It was because we had rounded to the nearest natural number. We have included the decimals so that it now gives 100%.