Dynamic Evaluation of Road Network Resilience to Traffic Accidents: An Emergency Management Perspective for Sustainable Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)

 

Comments:

Comment to Sustainability-3137301

 

Dynamic evaluation of road network resilience to traffic accidents from the perspective of emergency management toward sustainable cities in China

 

Comment:

 

In this paper, focusing on assessing road network resilience and considering the influence of emergency management behavior. A series of complex methods and index systems have been constructed to assess road network resilience by using some typical methods, such as GRA-TOPSIS and LSTM. At the same time, a real data set was applied as a validation to assess the resilience of the road network. From the perspective of promoting sustainable cities and improve the resilience of urban agglomerations, the study of this paper is meaningful for application in some areas. Although this paper attempts to make a detailed description from the aspects of index construction system, there are still some logical issues and unclarified details that need further explanation.

Therefore, it is a significant topic from a research point of view. As a suggestion, the author can further improve the structure of the article. To help readers better understand this article, a few details are worth noting:

 

 

(1)     As for the improved evaluation method, what are the improvements compared with the unimproved classical method, and what indicators are selected for evaluation, which seem not to be reflected in the paper.

(2)     In the literature review, road network resilience and the research on road network elasticity evaluation methods are discussed. However, there is a lack of literature on the impact of traffic accidents on road network resilience, the selection basis of the grey relational technique and LSTM used to improve evaluation methods, which are necessary for the improvement of the paper.

(3)     In Table 1, the factor level describes the factor indicators at different stages, but are there causal and other correlations among the different indicators, and are the endogenous influences eliminated?

(4)     To facilitate readers to understand the model, it is necessary to establish an explanation table for the variables in this paper for readers to retrieve.

(5)     In the research and experiment stage, the real data set is used, but the events on the road network have their unique topological and spatio-temporal distribution laws. Is there any specific description of the road network topology? It is necessary to further discuss and supplement the rationality of discussing the road network resilience from the mesoscale.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-structured and clearly written. The methodology and evaluation model are sound and adequately described. The results are well-analyzed and support the conclusions drawn.

To enhance the manuscript, minor revisions are suggested as follow:

• Table 1 should be entirely contained within a single page for improved readability. Additionally, while described in the text, the differentiation between element layers (D) within feature layers (C) is not visually clear. The table format requires refinement.
• The justification for the selection of element layers is brief. A concise explanation of the selection process would be beneficial. Furthermore, the manuscript would be strengthened by a discussion on the model’s applicability to other cities or countries, including the potential impact of excluding specific element layers on index comparability."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf