Transportation Interrelation Embedded in Regional Development: The Characteristics and Drivers of Road Transportation Interrelation in Guangdong Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research carried out in the manuscript is interesting. The paper is well organized and properly written, hence minor revisions are required before the final publication.

All the sections and the sub sections of the paper are clear. However, in the Introduction it is advisable to describe better the objective of the work. In this sense, a detailed explanation of the primary contributions this research makes to the Body of Knowledge is required. Therefore, the new and relevant information related to the issue outlined should be pointed out with reference to the existing reference literature. The Introduction section, in which the literature contributions have been described, does not clearly addressing the gab to be filled.

Also, for a better readability of the manuscript it is advisable to add a small paragraph describing the content of the subsequent sections at the end of the Introduction.

In the final part of the Manuscript it is recommended to include further insights of the study and future developments in line with the research carried out in order to highlight the significance of the topic. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. Here is our response to you.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for a very well-written research, I have two comments, the first being that the data anomaly due to covid-19 is not clear (lines 350-360) and thus does not show the presence or absence of the relevant impact on the data and relevant findings, especially given that in Figure 3, you mention that traffic density in 2020 was highest. Perhaps you could elaborate more on that point, as Covid-19 began in November 2019, so the year heavily affected should be 2020.  The second comment concerns the conclusion as it is a bit lengthy and can be shortened to be more focused. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. Here is our response to you.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the paper is well-organized and focuses on an interesting topic. My concerns about the paper are as follows:

• The paper includes two related but not sufficiently linked sub-studies; network structure analysis and QAP regression. I mentioned these two sub-studies not to be linked sufficiently because, none of the findings of the network structure analysis is carried to the QAP regression phase. In the conclusions, it starts with the city level deductions for the spatial relationships within Guangdong province and next, a general evaluation of the transport interrelations for the entire province is provided. However, the general evaluation is not building on or adding to the city level deductions. This is the main reason why I feel like those two analyses are disconnected. One might argue that the former analysis is talking about the interrelations and the latter analysis is for the determinants (as the link between two), which not totally incorrect. However, even when I consider the current structure is ok from this point of view, I still think that the linkage between these two sub-studies should be established (at least with a paragraph or two) to sustain a better flow of the manuscript.
• Connected with the point I mentioned above, I wonder whether the authors tried to estimate a separate QAP regression model for each of the four blocks presented in Table 2, in addition to the full model (with all cities) or not. I am not sure if this is possible. On the other hand, this might be a good way of linking two sub-studies and it could provide some interesting results.
• I know that Sustainability is not a methodology oriented journal and accordingly, detailed accounts of the models and/or methods employed are not fully necessary. However, essential information is still needed. I think some of such information is missing in the paper. For instance, for QAP, at the start of sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the authors stated that they have conducted 5000 and 2000 default random permutations, respectively. For example, I wonder why the figures are different (obviously more permutations seem to be necessary for QAP correlation but why?). Moreover, what is the role of performing permutations after all? And even, permutations of what is calculated? It is better to provide brief explanations for these and similar issues to improve understanding. I recommend the authors to go through the methodology sections from this sense and fill the gaps for essential information.
• Similar to the point I raised above, I am also concerned about the explanations provided for the block model analysis. In these explanations and in the results of the analysis, there are several mentions of relationships in the form of i.e., accepting relationship, sending relationship, etc. I believe it would be much better if some real world examples for different types of relationships are given. In other words, I wonder what type of an operation are the authors talking about when they mention a member to accept a relationship (better to give examples for all relationships).
• The full versions of abbreviations given in Table 3 are missing in the text. The readers can only make guesses about them. It looks like they are the first letters of the variable (i.e., U is for urbanization level). However, they should be clarified.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. Here is our response to you.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have successfully answered my concerns. I have nothing more to add.