An Integrated DPSIR-SD Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Roads in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very well written and with great clarity. The only remark concerns the conclusions (5. Future Work and recommendation) which could be slightly expanded, especially with regard to the constant updating of the model with scenario analysis. It would be very interesting if the authors would argue this last concept a little more.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented in the paper is interesting and worth publishing. This article presents an integrated sustainability performance assessment methodology that acts as a decision support tool. A series of two conceptual modelling techniques, i.e., Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) and System Dynamics (SD) are employed. While the cause-and-effect relation ships of the sustainability indicators are developed utilising the DPSIR framework, quantitative analysis is carried out through a subsequent SD model. The denouement of the methodology is to generate a Sustainability Performance Index (SPI) of road infrastructure by analysing the SD model and DPSIR index layer relationship. The benefits and applicability of the proposed methodology in the article are validated through case study analysis. The overall aim is to determine the restricting factors and responsive strategies influencing the road infrastructure sustainability performance during the operation and maintenance phase. Thus, a more significant contribution is provided through the proposed methodology in assessing factors influencing the long-term achievement of SDGs.

- in the "Keyword" section, the keyword "sustainable transport" should be added,

- at the end of the Introduction section, the Authors should shortly write what was the main aim of the paper as well as what was included in each paper section,

- in the Introduction section, among others, the Authors described how important a properly designed infrastructure is in the sustainable development of transport. It is true. Unfortunately, in the Introduction section, there was no indication that the first issue that can be done in order to ensure the right level of road traffic safety, as well as sustainable transport development, is designing a safe road infrastructure. Roundabout intersections are a very good example of point road infrastructure which makes highly road safety level. The advantages of this type of intersection (e.g. a small number of collision points compared to other types of intersections, speed reduction when crossing the intersection, low loss of time for drivers at inlets, etc.) contribute significantly to ensuring the appropriate level of road safety at a given point of the network transport. Authors should mention this while referring to the latest scientific literature on the subject in this regard, e.g. "Roundabout entry capacity calculation-A case study based on roundabouts in Tokyo, Japan, and Tokyo surroundings", doi 10.3390 / su12041533; "Safety Evaluation of Flower Roundabout Considering Autonomous Vehicles Operation", doi.org/10.3390/su131810120; "The Comparison of Models for Critical Headways Estimation at Roundabouts", doi 10.1007 / 978-3-319-43985-3_18. One short paragraph in the Introduction section will be enough,

- information presented on the figure "Figure 2. Sustainability Performance criteria and indicators depicting inter-relatedness under four aspects of sustainability" are the same as presented in the table "Table 2. Selection of criteria and indicators under each aspect of sustainability". The conclusion is that figure 2 is redundant and should be deleted from the paper,

- "Figure 3. Northern connector project road map" is of bad quality and not readable,

- in the section called "4. Case study" we can find repeated information, e.g. about the  North-South Corridor - that he connects the north with the south part of the country - see the line from 188 o 204,

- does the Authors have written permission for further use of the figure like "Figure 6(a,b). The behavior of the graph(pattern) of the “Success to Successful” archetype over time [39]" ? Usually, journal offices require from the paper Authors written permission for the further use of such figures (and also tables) which were originally prepared by the other Authors. This remark is dedicated to all similar cases in the paper text,

- the figure called "Figure 17. Vensim® model user interface representing dimensional consistency test" is too small and difficult for reading. It should be improved (i.e. make bigger in size),

- on the figure called "Figure 18. SPI of Toll Road and Freeway option for Northern Connector Project' what is the unit of time on the axis "x"? The unit should be added,

- paper text should be formatted according to the Sustainability journal paper template requirement. As far now, we can find in the paper many places where paper text formatting is different than Sustainability journal requirements, e.g. tables,

- on the figure called "Figure 15. Validating the Financial and Economic Net Present Value of the model" on figures in the first line from the top, on the axis "x" there is a lack of information what years were analysed,

- the paper is finished a section called "5. Future Work and recommendation". Where are the conclusions from the presented work? It should be added.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find attachment

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx