Highway Transportation, Health, and Social Equity: A Delphi-ANP Approach to Sustainable Transport Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the manuscript falls under the scope of the journal since different aspects of social sustainability were analyzed.
However, the main aim of the research should be focused and clearly mentioned in the abstract.
In the Section 1. Introduction, there should be a clear explanation of why the authors chose to consider adverse impacts of highway automobiles on both health and social equity.
Also, in sections 1. and 2. , the theoretical background research should be focused on previous studies dealing with the same or similar topic as the presented manuscript, and elaborate on their methodology and results, rather than representing well-known topics such as sustainability pillars, transportation or economic growth, and population increase should be shortened.
It is unclear what is the difference between Table 1 and Table 2 and how are they referenced in the text.
In the 3. the used methods and research techniques should be briefly described in general, while their specific usage in this research should be described in detail. This is mostly referred to the section 3.1.
Alongside with conclusion in section 5. the discussion of the results should be added, and therefore the implications with previous studies presented in section 2. should be emphasized.
It is still unclear how the results from this research could be implemented and what is the concrete scientific contribution.
Additional note: It is important to use the reference style that is specified for this journal. Also, all figures should indicate the source.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, this is an acceptable work. It presents an interesting review of the available literature about transport-health perception. It defines a robust hybrid method to identify the major negative impacts of motor vehicles in the UAE. Authors adopt a Delphi+ANP model as a starting point, generating a useful and interesting workflow.
The first part of the work is quite interesting. It provides an excellent introduction and literature review and clearly explains the research process, which, in my opinion, is the real value of this paper. However, some experimental design flaws/concerns must be addressed before publication.
1. We cannot evaluate the usefulness of the Delphi method because we do not know the questionnaire. Please provide the body of the email sent.
2. How were the experts selected? Please provide the criteria for such selection. We know that "experts selected were required to have relevant experience and expertise mainly in the field of public health and transportation and sustainable urban planning and design", but how do the authors evaluate such expertise? It is also not clear the diversity of these experts. Where are they based? ONG? Private sector? Academia? All these variables should be crystal clear.
3. At line 336 says "8 members" but I thought it was 15 members. Which is it?
4. The design of the second questionnaire is too descriptive. We don't know how it was designed. And again, we don't have it. The authors need to expand the methods section to explain, with particular examples, how the 2nd survey was designed.
The posterior analysis is well explained. However, without knowing details about the survey, evaluating is impossible.
5. Figures 7-9 are confusing. Are those screenshots from the statistical software used to analyse the surveys? If so, which software was used?
Once we know the questionnaire details, we can evaluate the conclusions.
6. The authors acknowledge the limitations, but the fact that no municipal officials were included in the experts' cohort is problematic and creates a huge bias. This relates to point 2 of my concerns, the diversity of the sample. This work must account for this factor, clarifying where the experts draw from.
Minor corrections
1. Repeated statement at line 369 (Therefore, the total list of the indicators consists of 15 indicators) from line 366. Delete.
2. Please define X and s from Eq 1 before Table 6. It could be that they are not obvious to everyone.
3. Improve Figure 6. Many of the phrases have overlapped letters.
4. Showing the First/second trials inconsistency as a Table is confusing. As these are only a few figures, mentioning them in the text is better.
Figures 7-9 are problematic. The text seems cut out, and the upper text seems pasted there.
Table 9 is ill-formated. Just look at the upper text. It's all cropped.
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please read the attachment. Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
thank you very much for taking suggestions into consideration. There are minor changes that I would suggest for some of the text parts that are presented in section 6.3, which should be shown in the introduction, considering for example the research gap mentioned in section 6.3.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all my previous concerns, particularly about the questionnaire. The authors put great effort into improving the previous versions, and I have no reservations in recommending this piece for publication.
Minor details.
