On the Quality of Street Lighting in Pedestrian Crossings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "The quality of lighting in selected pedestrian crossings" is intersting and addresses an important topic for the readers of Energies. However, i find some lacks that should be corrected before publication. They are the following:
- Sentence "The best lighting conditions at pedestrian crossings, and thus improved pedestrian visibility, can be achieved by additionally illuminating the crossing with a luminaire with asymmetrical light distribution". It is true, but explained in a somewhat confussing way. I know it is negative contrast the most suitable, but the authors also talk about positive one. I find it confusing. Please, explain it. I miss somereferences about it like the book "Road Lighting" of Wout van Bommel.
- I find no clear differences between difference between urban and roadway/interurban situations, that are clearly different dus to vehicle speed and other.
- The measurement procedires are also confusing. The authors must introduce a "materials and method" section where all the methodology is explained. Just as example, I am not sure to understand the angle of measurement of pavement luminance.
- One of the reasons behind the research is the differences in visual reaction times of drivers, but nithing is said about it.
- I find no discussion about potential diferences between white (LED) and amber (High/Low Pressure Sodium) lighting. Are all them similar in matter of driver visual reaction time reduction?
If the abovementioned items are improved, I would recommend publication.
Author Response
We are grateful for all your suggestions and comments on our article. They were very useful in changing the description of the research procedure and result analysis. Thanks to these changes the paper certainly became more comprehensible for the reader.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper studies the quality of street lighting in pedestrian crossings.
In general, the paper is interesting, even though some clarifications should be added in the paper.
All the following indicated aspects should be clarified and better explained in the manuscript.
Introduction
- The authors could consider adding the term “street” as a keyword in the title; what does mean “selected”? (i.e., “On the quality of street lighting in pedestrian crossings”)
- For the sake of readability, at the end of Section 1 the authors should describe how the paper is structured.
Literature review
- The main contributions of the paper are clearly described. Nevertheless, from the current manuscript it is not grasp understanding the novelty of the work. The authors should better highlight the innovative aspects of their work in the manuscript.
- Do the current technical and non-technical regulations / policies correctly address the potential of outdoor lighting in satisfying the pedestrian needs? For instance, as for the engineering perspective, several scientific studies shows that the design of street lighting systems (for instance: https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2020.2966738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.137, documents that could be cited in the paper) often involves simultaneously competing criteria such the energy efficiency, the environmental sustainability, the light pollution, and the drivers/citizens comfort. The Authors should comment this point as a challenging recommendation for lighting system design and retrofit.
Methodology
- The description of the proposed methodology could be improved. First, it could be better to insert at the end of Section 3 an outline about the proposed methodology; here, a high-level diagram/scheme could also help reader following the whole description.
Results
- There is no sensitivity analysis in the paper. Is it reasonable?
- The outcome of the proposed approach should be assessed and condensed into a suitable indicator(s) that synthetically summarizes the related overall correctness and accuracy.
Conclusions
- Can the authors provide guidelines that allow energy/facility managers/engineers to make outdoor lighting more beneficial to pedestrian?
- Conclusions needs to be extended to present further implications for future research and many managerial insights based on the results of the study, as well as limitations.
Minor
- The authors should check that all the used acronyms are explained
- Mainly the English is good and there are only a few typos. However the paper should be carefully rechecked.
Author Response
We are grateful for all your suggestions and comments on our article. They were very useful in changing the description of the research procedure and result analysis. Thanks to these changes the paper certainly became more comprehensible for the reader.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version incorporates remarkable improvements, so I recommend publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed. In the revised paper several improvements have been added.
