Safety Integrated Network Level Pavement Maintenance Decision Support Framework as a Practical Solution in Developing Countries: The Case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction and Background
The manuscript provides a comprehensive introduction and background to the problem of pavement maintenance in developing countries, specifically Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The authors highlight the challenges decision-makers face in allocating limited resources for road maintenance and the need for a safety-integrated, data-driven decision-support framework. The introduction effectively outlines the study's objectives and motivates the need for such a framework. It would be helpful to include more context about road safety and pavement maintenance in Addis Ababa, with relevant statistics and examples of the consequences of inadequate maintenance.
Literature Review
The literature review is well-structured and covers various relevant topics, including pavement management systems, decision support frameworks, and safety considerations in road maintenance. However, some recent references are missing, and the authors should ensure that the most up-to-date literature is included in the review. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include more examples of similar frameworks implemented in other developing countries and discuss their results and implications for the present study. Add the following references:
https://doi.org/10.1061/JPEODX.0000239
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159303
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2019.1677636
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081256
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.08.002
Methodology
The methodology section describes the proposed decision support framework and its components, including data collection, safety assessment, maintenance prioritization, and resource allocation. The authors explain the techniques used, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). However, more justification is needed for selecting these techniques, particularly in the context of developing countries and the unique challenges they face.
Furthermore, the data collection process and the data sources used in the study should be discussed in greater detail. The authors should also clarify how they addressed potential biases and limitations in the data, such as missing or inaccurate information.
Results and Discussion
The results are well-presented and show the effectiveness of the proposed framework in identifying maintenance priorities and allocating resources. The authors discuss the implications of their findings in the context of Addis Ababa and provide recommendations for policymakers and practitioners. However, the discussion should be expanded to consider the study's broader implications for other developing countries, particularly those facing similar challenges in road safety and pavement maintenance. Additionally, the authors should explore potential limitations and biases in their results and suggest ways to address them in future research.
Conclusion
The conclusion effectively summarizes the study's main findings and their implications for pavement maintenance in Addis Ababa. The authors also highlight the potential benefits of the proposed framework for other developing countries. It would be useful to discuss any study limitations and suggest future research directions to refine further and validate the decision support framework.
Overall Assessment
After addressing the previous comments, the manuscript presents a novel decision support framework for pavement maintenance in developing countries, focusing on safety integration. The case study of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, demonstrates the potential applicability and benefits of the proposed framework. However, the authors should address the issues raised in this review, particularly concerning the justification of the selected techniques, data collection, and the broader implications of their results. With these revisions, the manuscript has the potential to significantly contribute to the literature on pavement maintenance and road safety in developing countries.
- In the abstract, some sentences seem to be a comment on the manuscript rather than a part of the abstract. Consider revising these sentences.
- Throughout the manuscript, ensure consistency in the use of tenses. For example, when discussing the methods, use the past tense to describe the processes that have been completed.
- Be cautious using passive voice, as it can sometimes make sentences unclear. Where possible, use active voice for better readability.
- When presenting the results, ensure that all tables and figures are properly labeled and the text refers to them accurately.
- Proofread the entire manuscript to correct the major grammatical errors or inconsistencies in punctuation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written. The authors should consider including a section that addresses the impact of pavement deterioriation on safety. It is important to include safety considerations in pavement management, it would also be very instructive to provide a data-driven rationale for it besides the lack of a proper pavement management system. Is it possible that the safety considerations would be improved if proper pavement management was done? And to what degree?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer Comments:
Major
· Main concern of the study is that the authors have taken a fairly simple methodology and over complicated it with vast amounts of text, parameters etc. The system boundaries of the study are too wide, when it comes to safety there are countless variables. A PMS considers the pavement condition and maintenance/rehabilitation, it typically does not extend to vehicle restraint systems, lighting, signing, pedestrian facilities, geometry, etc. The authors both mention these other parameters but selectively choose which to focus on. It is understood a model is being created for limited available data, but the authors need to better describe exactly what data is used for input, why it is used and the relevance of it. Also, don’t do this over 4 sections of the paper.
· Another point is when introducing and utilising such a vast amount of information/parameters, the paper enters the realm of requiring a sensitivity analysis to determine how each parameter influences the results. These are the complications that follow onto overcomplicating a simple methodology.
· The paper has merit but needs to be simplified, it is very difficult to follow what is being presented. Consider tightening the system boundaries and only focusing on what is really relevant.
· A critical error made is introducing new information in the discussion and conclusion sections, such as signs and road markings. You can’t introduce new info after the fact. This demonstrates a poor golden thread through the paper and a need to rewrite/restructure and simplify it.
· I strongly recommend the authors consider the following two papers. These papers follow similar methodologies and assess similar parameters and are relevant to the sub-saharan African landscape. Consider using similar wording/descriptions and ways of illustrating methodologies/processes in a clear way that readers can understand. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103203 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103221
· ‘the risk is the percentage of the road length not meeting the road agency’s performance target.’ – risk is a function of probability and consequence, how is this included in the calculations as percentage alone is not really sufficient. Need to better describe this as a lot of the paper relies on this definition of risk.
· ‘our maintenance strategies with repair actions (1, 1, 2, 3, 1), (1, 2, 2, 3, 1), (1, 1, 2, 1, 360 1), (1, 1, 1, 1, 1)’ – what are these repair strategies, what does all this mean in real terms? A reader should not have to try and figure out the vectors to understand each strategy. If (1,1,2,3,1) is a proactive heavy maintenance regime, just add a table to describe this better.
· ‘or the 10:1 ratio can be used in the absence of actual data’ – based on what?
· ‘Consequently, the risk, as presented in Fig. 5 is zero for these strategies.’ – is the risk really 0?
Minor
· Consider alternative wording for ‘road traffic crashes’ such as road traffic incidents or similar.
· ‘Every year, 1.35 million people decease because of road traffic crashes’ – grammar
· ‘the sustainable development goal to halve the number of deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes by 2020’ – this is goal 3, target 3.6. Be specific when referring to it.
· ‘Every year, 1.35 million people decease because of road traffic crashes. Ninety percent of these fatalities happen in developing countries’ vs ‘Although the death rate in low-income developing countries is over three times higher than in developed countries, the initiative to reduce the number of road traffic crashes has not yet progressed in these high-risk countries’ – explain the math of 90% vs 3 times higher. Seems to be in contradiction but I could be mistaken.
· Pavement management system (PMS) – if you acronymise use the acronym consistently.
· ‘Table 1. Classification of LCC’ LCC not yet acronymised. Also, don’t acronymise in captions.
· ‘Global road safety performance targets imply that roads with a star rating of 3 or above for all road users are regarded as fulfilling technical standards considering safety’ – 1) they don’t imply they state, 2) reference
· ‘If a road does not have a paved shoulder, a CMF value of 1 is used; however, if a road has a paved shoulder, the CMF value becomes 0.77, 0.83, and 0.95 for shoulder width 2.4 m and more, more than 1 m but less than 2.4 m, and up to 1 m, respectively.’ – better to put this type of info in a table. Consider the relevance of this data as it is not clear how it influences the results.
· IRI never acronymised
· Grammar throughout can be checked as there are various errors.
English needs to be improved. I have touched on a few examples but more exist in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Minor English language-related revisions are required. Also it is also recommended to consider all the suggested references from the first round of review.
Minor English language-related revisions are required. It is recommended to proofread the manuscript by a native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Attached File:
REVIEWER 1
[Minor English language-related revisions are required.] → Comment 1
[Also it is also recommended to consider all the suggested references from the first round of review.] → Comment 2
Comment 1
“Minor English language-related revisions are required.”
Authors’ response
We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have considered it during the revision process.
Comment 2
“Also, it is also recommended to consider all the suggested references from the first round of review.”
Authors’ response
We thank the reviewer for providing us with up-to-date references to consider. We have included three of them in our research as they are highly relevant to our study. However, the remaining two papers are fascinating and represent current research in the field. The first paper, 'Prediction of Liquidated Damages via Ensemble Machine Learning Models: Towards Sustainable Highway Construction Projects,' focuses on liquidated damages in highway construction projects. The second paper, 'Evaluating the Impact of External Support on Green Building Construction Cost: A Hybrid Mathematical and Machine Learning Prediction Approach,' investigates the influence of external public and private support on the costs of green construction projects. Despite their exciting content, we have determined that including these two papers in our literature review framework would not directly apply to our research.
Reviewer 3 Report
None
Author Response
We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their valuable time to thoroughly review our manuscript promptly and offering thoughtful comments.
