The Optimization of a Slow-Walking System in a Higher Education Campus—Taking the Huangjiahu Campus of Wuhan University of Science and Technology as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Glad to review the paper (sustainability-3173625). This paper focused on the deficiencies in the pedestrian system in terms of safety, convenience, and comfort. Using the PLPS survey method and statistical analysis, the current situation is thoroughly analyzed. The IPA analysis method is then employed to evaluate satisfaction levels and identify key factors affecting the performance of the pedestrian system, leading to the proposal of a series of improvement measures. The paper is well written. However, the presentation and format should be further improved. More detailed remarks and suggestions follow:

1. What are the contributions of this study? It seems like a planning project report. Basing on a real case is good but necessary theoretical research is indispensable. The author should add it.

2. Although the PLPS survey method and statistical analysis are mentioned, the description of the specific data collection, processing, and analysis procedures is not detailed enough.

3. In further refining the analysis of the current situation, could specific examples and data be incorporated to more clearly demonstrate the issues, and further illustrate the severity of the existing problems?

4. The application process and results of the IPA analysis may not be clearly presented. When displaying the IPA analysis results, incorporating charts and detailed explanations of the analysis steps could make the extraction of key indicators and the basis for quadrant division more transparent.

5. Further explain the questionnaire design process, including how indicators and scoring criteria were selected and how data reliability and validity were ensured. Consider adding an appendix on the questionnaire design and data collection methods to help readers understand the entire research process.

6. In line 249 of the article, Figure 2-7 is mentioned, but there is no Figure 2-7 present in the article. Figure 3-2 in line 278 exhibits the same issue. Please carefully review the figures and tables in the article to ensure none are missing.

7. The titles for Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 in the article are identical. Could you please clarify where the data for Point 2 is located? It is recommended that these two figures be converted into tables for better clarity.

8. Figures 2-8 and 2-9 appear in the content of Chapter 3, but their figure numbers do not correspond to the chapter number. It is recommended that these figures be renumbered to match the chapter they belong to, ensuring consistency throughout the document.

 

9. Have the proposed optimization strategies sufficiently considered the feasibility of implementation and resource constraints? Is there a need to discuss the practical steps for execution further and the potential challenges of these strategies?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language level should be improved. 

Author Response

Comments 1: What are the contributions of this study? It seems like a planning project report. Basing on a real case is good but necessary theoretical research is indispensable. The author should add it.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. In order to enhance the theoretical depth of the paper, I have appropriately added the relevant theoretical foundations of the paper in the introduction and conclusion sections, and appropriately revised the conclusion section at the end of the article to list the research-related contributions while ensuring that the logical framework of the whole article is clear.

Comments 2: Although the PLPS survey method and statistical analysis are mentioned, the description of the specific data collection, processing, and analysis procedures is not detailed enough.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful review. In order to increase the transparency of the research methodology, I have added specific steps for data collection, statistical methods for data processing, and the analysis process in section 2.3 of the text. I have also included the tools and sample data used in the research process for the reader's reference.

Comments 3: In further refining the analysis of the current situation, could specific examples and data be incorporated to more clearly demonstrate the issues, and further illustrate the severity of the existing problems?

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. In order to present the problem more clearly, I have added specific case studies and quantitative data to the status quo analysis section. These additional materials not only highlight the severity of the problem, but also provide an empirical basis for subsequent optimization strategies.

Comments 4: The application process and results of the IPA analysis may not be clearly presented. When displaying the IPA analysis results, incorporating charts and detailed explanations of the analysis steps could make the extraction of key indicators and the basis for quadrant division more transparent.

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. I have added detailed steps of IPA analysis in the text and visualized the results in graphical form. In addition, I have explained in detail the process of selecting key indicators and the basis of quadrant delineation to enhance the credibility of the analysis.

Comments 5: Further explain the questionnaire design process, including how indicators and scoring criteria were selected and how data reliability and validity were ensured. Consider adding an appendix on the questionnaire design and data collection methods to help readers understand the entire research process.

Response 5: After reading your suggestions, I have added the selection basis and scoring details for some of the indicators in Chapter 3.1 and Chapter 3.3 without affecting the structure of the article, thank you for the reminder!

Comments 6: In line 249 of the article, Figure 2-7 is mentioned, but there is no Figure 2-7 present in the article. Figure 3-2 in line 278 exhibits the same issue. Please carefully review the figures and tables in the article to ensure none are missing.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the error. I have renumbered all the figures in the text and ensured that the numbering of each figure matches its citation in the text. In addition, I have double-checked all charts and graphs to ensure the completeness and accuracy of their content.

 

Comments 7: The titles for Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 in the article are identical. Could you please clarify where the data for Point 2 is located? It is recommended that these two figures be converted into tables for better clarity.

Response 7: Thank you for the correction. After reworking this section, the content has changed and I have replaced the corresponding images and made changes in the image numbering and figure names to ensure that the title of each chart is unique

 

Comments 8: Figures 2-8 and 2-9 appear in the content of Chapter 3, but their figure numbers do not correspond to the chapter number. It is recommended that these figures be renumbered to match the chapter they belong to, ensuring consistency throughout the document.

Response 8: Thank you for your careful review. I have rechecked and reorganized the numbering of all the figures in the text to ensure that the numbering of each figure is consistent with the section to which it belongs, thus improving the overall consistency of the document.

Comments 9: Have the proposed optimization strategies sufficiently considered the feasibility of implementation and resource constraints? Is there a need to discuss the practical steps for execution further and the potential challenges of these strategies?

Response 9: Thank you for your query. The overall content of the thesis is optimized from the practical point of view of the users and under the premise of fully considering the limitations of the existing environment of the campus, to ensure that the optimization strategy is comprehensive and at the same time has the corresponding feasibility. However, the specific implementation of the optimization has not yet been completed, and it may be subject to certain limitations of the existing resources, but the proposed strategy has already tried to minimize the financial investment and spatial resources. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the strategy, the implementation steps need to be further refined, including but not limited to project planning, financing, construction management, and post maintenance and evaluation. Each of these steps will require a detailed plan and timeline to ensure that the project is completed on schedule. Due to space constraints, it may not be appropriate to describe too much of this in an article, but your suggestions and considerations are very reasonable in terms of a long term project.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have read your article with interest and find your research useful.

In general, the approaches to the comprehensive analysis of the problems of the university campus transport system are correct.

Authors use the correct approach to identifying problems (IPA Analysis Method), but use it, in my opinion, somewhat incorrectly. The identification of problems in the gradation "Importance – Satisfaction" implies 4 options:

1 quadrant – "Important is satisfaction"

2 quadrant "Important and no satisfaction"

3 quadrant " Not important and there is no satisfaction"

4 quadrant " Not important and there is satisfaction"

Authors correctly point out that the main problem within the framework of such an analysis lies in the sphere of the 2nd quadrant: (lines 279-281): "From the IPA quadrant analysis diagram, it can be seen that the current need to solve the second quadrant, namely, high importance and low satisfaction area of each indicator."

However, there is a methodological flaw in this study. Below is an explanation of the problem area of the study.

Line 281 Figure 3-1. Overall IPA Quadrant Analysis of Campus Slow-Moving Transportation – it is necessary to change the spatial layout and assign the boundaries of the evaluation field differently. The 3rd and 4th quadrants in your diagram have no functional purpose. Now the boundary between 1.2 and 3.4 quadrants runs along the mark of the average score of 3,752. The division between 2.3 and 1.4 squares of satisfaction at the mark of 2,641 is also unclear. It is much more correct to show this analysis in the dimension of the coordinate field X = [1;5]; Y = [1;5]. The quadrants must be of the same area. The spatial location of all points evaluating all 41 Tertial Factors should be identified in the diagram. Otherwise, there is an effect of visual distortion of the presented information.

I consider this remark to be fundamental. Why are only those factors considered for which the score is higher than the average? Much more attention needs to be paid to problematic aspects.

Accordingly, section 3.3.1 of the IPA Analysis Method of the article should be finalized, supplemented and fundamentally changed.

 

In addition, I have the following wishes for the Authors.

Line 142. 2,705 mu – English-speaking readers will not understand this information. The data on the area must be presented in the dimension of km².

Lines 235-236 and 241-243. It is necessary to show all the complete information about the distribution of points for all evaluation indicators. It is necessary to use a statistical approach - to present statistical distributions, mathematical expectations of scores for each indicator, etc.

Lines 258-262. "The method first proposed by Martilla and James divides a two-dimensional matrix into four quadrants using importance as the horizontal coordinate, perceived performance (i.e. satisfaction) as the vertical coordinate, and the overall average of importance and perceived performance as the cutoff point". It is necessary to make a link to the work of Mortilla and James.

Line 277-278. "the constructed analysis scheme of the IPA model is shown in Figure 3-2”. Figure 3-2 is missing from the text of the article.

There are no comments on the assessment of specific issues and the development of specific proposals (text of sections 3.3.3, 4, 5). Everything is logical and correct. It is important to finalize the section with the methodology for assessing problem areas (sections 3.1 and 3.2).

In addition, I would recommend that the authors divide section 3 Analysis and assessment of overall satisfaction with the slow walking system into two parts – Methodology and Results.

Author Response

Comments 1: Authors use the correct approach to identifying problems (IPA Analysis Method), but use it, in my opinion, somewhat incorrectly.

Authors correctly point out that the main problem within the framework of such an analysis lies in the sphere of the 2nd quadrant: (lines 279-281): "From the IPA quadrant analysis diagram, it can be seen that the current need to solve the second quadrant, namely, high importance and low satisfaction area of each indicator."

However, there is a methodological flaw in this study. Below is an explanation of the problem area of the study.

Accordingly, section 3.3.1 of the IPA Analysis Method of the article should be finalized, supplemented and fundamentally changed.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. After reading your comments, I first redrew the quadrant distribution chart to make sure that the complete 41 indicators are distributed on the chart. Secondly, I would like to make some explanations for this method, the quadrant division of IPA analysis has always been based on the average of the horizontal and vertical coordinates, which does not ensure that the area of each quadrant is the same, but the visual effect of the picture has been improved to a certain extent by the addition of the 41 points. Secondly, I have added explanations to the content of the quadrant division. Considering the large number of optimization indicators, the optimization content needs to have a certain focus, so I chose to focus on the indicators in the second quadrant (high importance and low satisfaction), and the specific content has been added to the corresponding chapter, thank you again for your review.

Comments 2: Line 142. 2,705 mu – English-speaking readers will not understand this information. The data on the area must be presented in the dimension of km2.

Response 2: Thank you for your corrections. To ensure comprehension by international readers, I have converted all land area units from “acres” to the international standard unit of “square kilometers” and have checked the text for consistency accordingly, to ensure that all data are presented accurately and professionally.

Comments 3: Lines 235-236 and 241-243. It is necessary to show all the complete information about the distribution of points for all evaluation indicators. It is necessary to use a statistical approach - to present statistical distributions, mathematical expectations of scores for each indicator, etc.

Response 3: Thanks to your suggestion, I have contextualized this section by adding the complete indicator information and associated result values along with the article in section 3.3, and this additional information will help readers understand the data analysis process and results more fully. The indicators here show a three-level structure mainly because I wanted to highlight the process of thinking about and screening the indicators, starting from campus zoning (Level 1 factor), considering slow-moving system components (Level 2 factor), and then selecting specific indicators (Level 3 factor).

Comments 4: Lines 258-262. "The method first proposed by Martilla and James divides a two-dimensional matrix into four quadrants using importance as the horizontal coordinate, perceived performance (i.e. satisfaction) as the vertical coordinate, and the overall average of importance and perceived performance as the cutoff point". It is necessary to make a link to the work of Martilla and James.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, but my intention in presenting these two researchers was to elaborate and draw out the methodology to facilitate the specific analysis using the IPA model below, and after reading your suggestion, I have added the basis for the delineation of the quadrants appropriately later to make the methodology elaboration more concrete

Comments 5: Line 277-278. "the constructed analysis scheme of the IPA model is shown in Figure 3-2”. Figure 3-2 is missing from the text of the article.

Response 5: Thank you for your careful correction. I have checked and updated all of the figure references in the text to ensure that every reference to a figure is correctly displayed in the text. For the missing Figure 3-2, I have added the corresponding figure and renumbered it to ensure consistency between the figure and the textual content.

Comments 6: There are no comments on the assessment of specific issues and the development of specific proposals (text of sections 3.3.3, 4, 5). Everything is logical and correct. It is important to finalize the section with the methodology for assessing problem areas (sections 3.1 and 3.2).

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. I have added and refined sections 3.1 and 3.2 to describe in detail the methodological basis of the problem assessment. This includes specific steps for indicator screening, data processing and analysis, and how to ensure the reliability and validity of the assessment results.

Comments 7: In addition, I would recommend that the authors divide section 3 Analysis and assessment of overall satisfaction with the slow walking system into two parts – Methodology and Results.

Response 7: Thanks to your suggestion, I've reorganized this part of the chapter content and reclassified the chapters as you mentioned

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is qualitative analysis of campus slow walking.
The paper considers an interesting issue, but the analysis
fails, for instance, to be of publication level.

The main concern is the following. All the solutions
proposed by the authors are simple improvements of the
existing infrastructure. To my view, this is a bad approach
simplifying reforms to spendings in equipments instead of
considering changes in practices and operations.

I think that the text should be written with a clear
perspective where the objective is the identifications of
problems limiting the choice of slow walk mode (and the
bicycle). The authors can then explain how each problem can
be dealt with. A minimum assessment of the involved costs
should be provided. Furthermore, as I explain next, the
word 'optimization' is not correctly used.

The usage of 'optimization' is usually related to
quantitative modeling, not to qualitative analysis.
I think that the word 'improvement' is more convenient in
this case.

Other problems
==============

Sentences like this one are difficult to follow (page 11,
line 344 to 348):

      'Traffic signal optimization at key intersections will give
      higher priority to slow-moving traffic.  The signals will
      also be dynamically adjusted through an intelligent traffic
      monitoring system to adapt to real-time traffic demand and
      ensure the smoothness of slow-moving traffic.'

It is not clear where the authors want to say. The first part
says that walker and bikers are going to have higher
priorities. This is in itself an important question that
needs to be evaluated and compared with the case of lower
priorities.
The second sentence quickly switches to the dynamic adjustment
of traffic, a technically challenging issue that is dropped
in the text without any further detail on how it is
implemented and even without motivating its objective.

This is an example, but most the narrative in the text has
similar weakness.

Other points:

- The title is too long
- PLPS is used twice (page 1 and page 2) before defined in page 4
- Figure 4.3: this is not a 'schematic diagram'; overall the colors
  and symbols cannot be easily distinguished; could be improved.
- Are the Figures from the authors? For example, I can find
  several similar images of Fig. 4-1 on the internet by
  image search. Please check and cite correctly when needed.
- Overall, the tables and figures are only shortly
  commented. More effort to improve the text should be done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall OK

Author Response

Comments 1: The main concern is the following. All the solutions proposed by the authors are simple improvements of the existing infrastructure. To my view, this is a bad approach simplifying reforms to spendings in equipments instead of considering changes in practices and operations.

I think that the text should be written with a clear perspective where the objective is the identifications of problems limiting the choice of slow walk mode (and the bicycle). The authors can then explain how each problem can be dealt with. A minimum assessment of the involved costs should be provided.

Response 1: Thank you for your query. The overall content of the thesis is optimized from the practical point of view of the users and under the premise of fully considering the limitations of the existing environment of the campus, to ensure that the optimization strategy is comprehensive and at the same time has the corresponding feasibility. However, the specific implementation of the optimization has not yet been completed, and it may be subject to certain limitations of the existing resources, but the proposed strategy has already tried to minimize the financial investment and spatial resources. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the strategy, the implementation steps need to be further refined, including but not limited to project planning, financing, construction management, and post maintenance and evaluation. Each of these steps will require a detailed plan and timeline to ensure that the project is completed on schedule. Due to space constraints, it may not be appropriate to describe too much of this in an article, but your suggestions and considerations are very reasonable in terms of a long term project.

Comments 2:  Furthermore, as I explain next, the word 'optimization' is not correctly used. The usage of 'optimization' is usually related to quantitative modeling, not to qualitative analysis. I think that the word 'improvement' is more convenient in this case.

Response 2: Thank you for the correction. I understand that the term “optimization” is usually associated with quantitative modeling, whereas this study employs more qualitative analysis. Therefore, I will revisit the use of the word “optimize” in the text and replace it with “improve” where appropriate to more accurately reflect the nature and methodology of the study.

Comments 3: Sentences like this one are difficult to follow (page 11,line 344 to 348):

'Traffic signal optimization at key intersections will give higher priority to slow-moving traffic.  The signals will also be dynamically adjusted through an intelligent traffic monitoring system to adapt to real-time traffic demand and ensure the smoothness of slow-moving traffic.'

It is not clear where the authors want to say. The first part says that walker and bikers are going to have higher priorities. This is in itself an important question that needs to be evaluated and compared with the case of lower priorities.The second sentence quickly switches to the dynamic adjustment of traffic, a technically challenging issue that is dropped in the text without any further detail on how it is implemented and even without motivating its objective.This is an example, but most the narrative in the text has similar weakness.

Response 3: Thank you for your correction, first of all, I would like to explain to you that the sentence you mentioned is located in the fourth chapter section of the article, which is mainly about the optimization strategy for the campus slow-moving system, and I divided it into two parts, the first one is the description of the strategy for optimizing the generic problem of the whole campus slow-moving system, so the terminology may be more general, and the second one is based on the results of the previous research and evaluation, and the most representative ones are selected. The second part is based on the results of the previous research and evaluation, the most representative three locations were selected for targeted optimization, presenting a whole-to-part presentation. Secondly, I would like to apologize to you that the overall presentation was not smooth for you to read due to my lack of expressive ability and English level, and I have optimized the text of this part.

Comments 4: The title is too long

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. I have streamlined some of the article titles to ensure that they are concise yet accurately reflect the research. This will help to make the article more professional and engaging.

Comments 5:  PLPS is used twice (page 1 and page 2) before defined in page 4

Response 5: Thank you for this reminder. The first page that mentions PLPS is the abstract of the article, which inevitably mentions and summarizes the methods used throughout the research process, but does not describe the specific content of the analysis, and it is not appropriate to add a definition here. The second page that mentions PLPS is the introduction part of the article, here is a list of previous researchers in the field of what methods are used, mainly to account for the current state of the field of research, here to add a definition is more inappropriate, I hope that my explanation can impress you, but this is really also my typographical errors, thank you for your correction!

Comments 6: Figure 4.3: this is not a 'schematic diagram'; overall the colors and symbols cannot be easily distinguished; could be improved.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. I have optimized the colors and symbols of Figure 4.3 to improve its readability and clarity. I have also revised the title and explanatory text of the chart to ensure that they more accurately reflect the content of the chart.

Comments 7: Are the Figures from the authors? For example, I can find several similar images of Fig. 4-1 on the internet by image search. Please check and cite correctly when needed.

Response 7: Thank you for your correction, first of all, I make sure that this picture is drawn by my own hand, especially Figure 4-1, the left section of the road is inclined because the existing condition of our school base is like this, and all the data of the road comes from the field measurements of the school, and secondly, you can search for a similar picture because most of the papers consider optimizing the cross section of the road among the same topic, and this is the basis of my optimization reference. This is also my reference for optimization.

Comments 8: Overall, the tables and figures are only shortly commented. More effort to improve the text should be done.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestions, with specific reference to your suggestions, I have made some changes to the article and re-optimized the overall text content, also added and improved some of the charts, looking forward to receiving your corrections.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have make the necessary revisions and improved indeed. However, there are still some concerns to addess. 

(1) The authors did not conduct the simulation. Thus, it is hard to estimate the effectivenss of using the design proposed in the paper. At least, Vissim simulation should be added. 

(2) I did not find out the 'Low Carbon' related work. What did the authors make the specific contributions on 'Low Carbon' facilitation?

(3) With regards to 'Improvement strategies for slow-moving roads in major landscape areas (Qinhu)' On L643, it can be applied for the real-world, right? 

How to prove it is correct for real applicaiton? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language level should be enhanced. 

Author Response

Comments 1:  The authors did not conduct the simulation. Thus, it is hard to estimate the effectivenss of using the design proposed in the paper. At least, Vissim simulation should be added.  

Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we agree with the importance of simulation in evaluating the effectiveness of design solutions. However, our project is still in the optimization and implementation stage, and we would like to explain that the focus of the article is mainly on evaluation and optimization, simulating the effect of the whole optimization requires time to collect a lot of feedback data, and too much portrayal of the simulation process will also blur the focus of the article to a certain extent, and it will also take some time for us to master the software that you have proposed, we have used our expertise in transportation planning software such as TransCAD and ArcGis to conduct a preliminary overall evaluation of the effectiveness of the optimized design after we have read your suggestions. TransCAD, ArcGis and other transportation planning software to conduct a preliminary overall evaluation of the effect of the optimized design, in the hope that this can improve the effectiveness of the optimized design, the specific content has been added to the article's section 4.3, thank you again for your suggestions, we will continue to collect relevant information in the subsequent research, and strive to summarize all the simulations and optimized effects as soon as possible, your valuable suggestions have improved our research ideas and given us more directions.

Comments 2:   I did not find out the 'Low Carbon' related work. What did the authors make the specific contributions on 'Low Carbon' facilitati 

Response 2:Thanks to the reviewer's question, we realize that the contribution of “low carbon” is not clear enough in the paper. First, we would like to explain to you that our emphasis on low carbon theory is intended to provide a perspective on the optimization of the slow-moving system, and second, we would like to summarize to you the contribution to low carbon promotion in two specific ways:

1. Reducing motor vehicle dependence: Reducing the dependence of students and faculty on motor vehicles by providing efficient, safe, and comfortable slow-moving options, thereby reducing traffic congestion and motor vehicle emissions on campus.
2. Reduce carbon emissions: Encouraging low-carbon travel options such as walking and cycling directly reduces the campus' carbon footprint and helps to achieve the campus' carbon reduction goals.

After reading your suggestions, we have added this section to Section 5, which is highlighted in green. Thank you again for your review!

Comments 3:   With regards to 'Improvement strategies for slow-moving roads in major landscape areas (Qinhu)' On L643, it can be applied for the real-world, right? 

Response 3: Thank you for your question. First of all, we would like to explain to you that for the reconstruction of this area, we are based on the actual results of the previous research, as well as the optimization results obtained from the interviews with the teachers and students, based on the different purposes of teachers and students for the roadway, i.e., passability, ornamental, and recreational, and optimize it separately. After the optimization plan is out, we will visit the researchers again and make efforts to truly implement the optimization to the needs of the users.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I am completely satisfied with your answers to my questions and your work on improving the article.

Author Response

Comments 1: Dear Authors, I am completely satisfied with your answers to my questions and your work on improving the article.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your professionalism and meticulous feedback during the review process. Your valuable comments not only scrutinized our article deeply, but also provided us with valuable guidance and inspiration. We are very pleased with your recognition. We promise to continue our efforts to ensure that our research meets academic standards and contributes to the scholarly community. Thank you again for your time and support and we look forward to being guided by you again in the future!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While some improvement has been made to the text, there are still several points to deal with:

- Answer 5 is not convincing

- the concept "optimization" is still widely used (see Table 4.2, for example) contrarily to what is said in the answers

- Figure 3-1 has two problems

  * is it a table or a figure, mixing both is not appropriate

 * it is incorrect to use continuous lines to draw qualitative characters; histograms with space are usually used

- Figure 3.3 can be replaced by a short sentence.

- The answers to the report use "I" rather than "We"; The paper has three authors and it seems there is only one involved in the revision. This is  not a positive message sent.

Please take the time to revise the paper before submitting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Edi slightly

Author Response

Comments 1:  Answer 5 is not convincing.

Response 2: Thank you for your review, we checked the content of the article again, the first appearance of PLPS is in the fifteenth line of the article, this paragraph is the abstract of the article, mainly to summarize the specific operation and findings of the whole research process, and it seems that there is no precedent of adding definitions here when we read the previous papers.The second appearance of PLPS is in the fifty-sixth line of the article, this is the introduction part of the article. In the introduction part of the article, we mainly state the research background and current status of the article, and the appearance of PLPS here is to show that past researchers have used this method to conduct research, and the whole introduction part is to list the research results of scholars all over the world in this field to provide the background for the following research, and it is inappropriate to add the explanation of the definition here, and the third PLPS appears in line 157, which is the main part of the article, where we write the definition of the method and connect it with the process of using this method later in the article. I don't know if you are satisfied with this explanation, thank you again for reviewing it, and I hope we have made it clear enough.

Comments 2: The concept "optimization" is still widely used (see Table 4.2, for example) contrarily to what is said in the answers.

Response 2: Thank you for your review. Most of the articles we referenced and the first papers we started with were indeed from an optimization perspective, so all of the analysis, research, evaluation, and optimization strategy references up to and including 4.2 were from papers on optimizing slow-moving systems, so we did not drastically change the vocabulary in this section, whereas most of the content in section 4.2, as you said, was not grounded in quantitative modeling, so we rechecked all of the “optimization” terms in 4.2 and replaced them with “improvement” to more accurately reflect our methodology. Therefore, we have rechecked all the words “optimize” in 4.2 and replaced them with “improve” to more accurately reflect our methodology. Thanks again for the correction.

 

Comments 3:   Figure 3-1 has two problems

 * is it a table or a figure, mixing both is not appropriate

 * it is incorrect to use continuous lines to draw qualitative characters; histograms with space are usually used

Response 3: Thank you for your correction, after reading your suggestion we deleted the part of the table and replaced it with a bar chart with detailed data, your comments also let us learn a lot, we will pay more attention to similar details in the drawing of the future paper, thank you again for your review.

Comments 4:  Figure 3.3 can be replaced by a short sentence.

Response 4: Thanks to your suggestion, we have added the phrase that can replace Figure 3.3 in the article, but in order to ensure the aesthetics of this page, we have not deleted Figure 3.3, so that it and 3.2 layout may be more aesthetically pleasing together. We would like to thank you for your valuable comments.

Comments 5: The answers to the report use "I" rather than "We"; The paper has three authors and it seems there is only one involved in the revision. This is  not a positive message sent.

Response 5: Your question is very reasonable. First of all, we assure you that the revision part of the paper was really done by the three of us. Secondly, after we discussed and negotiated the general revision plan, each of us wrote a part of the reply to the revision, so we used “I” instead of “We”, which is really our negligence in the expression of the spoken language, we will pay more attention to this point in our future replies, and thank you for your valuable suggestions. We will pay more attention to this point in our future replies, and thank you for your valuable suggestions.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I see the effort put by the authors to improve their presentation and appreciate it. However, the authors only did a minor revision. 

1. Re your statement ‘we have used our expertise in transportation planning software such as TransCAD and ArcGis to conduct a preliminary overall evaluation of the effectiveness of the optimized design after we have read your suggestions.’ Where is the optimization effectiveness by using TransCAD and ArcGis ?

2. 'Low Carbon' related work should have been estimated quantitatively. The authors should add this work. Otherwise, it is slow transport but without any contributions related to 'Low Carbon'. 

3. If it is not a real project, why is it optimized? How to prove it is better than the original situation? 

4. Is the data real? Or hypothetical? 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It should improve a lot. 

Author Response

Comments 1:  Re your statement ‘we have used our expertise in transportation planning software such as TransCAD and ArcGis to conduct a preliminary overall evaluation of the effectiveness of the optimized design after we have read your suggestions.’ Where is the optimization effectiveness by using TransCAD and ArcGis ?

Response 1: The query you have raised is very reasonable. We have used software such as TransCAD and ArcGis to conduct a preliminary assessment. First, Arcgis was used to integrate the slow-moving traffic network before and after the optimization, and to analyze the land use of specific areas, which helped us to estimate the potential generation and attraction of slow-moving traffic, so as to calculate the capacity and time cost of the slow-moving system before and after the optimization. Secondly, TransCAD helped us with simulation and data analysis. Based on the previous land use situation, we could divide the slow-moving system within the campus into different traffic districts, and then use TransCAD to calculate the shortest travel time between these districts, and compare all the time costs before and after optimization, and find that the slow-moving time has been reduced significantly, which can reflect the effect of the optimization. Thank you again for your careful review.

 

Comments 2:   'Low Carbon' related work should have been estimated quantitatively. The authors should add this work. Otherwise, it is slow transport but without any contributions related to 'Low Carbon'.

Response 2: The questions you raise are very reasonable. At the beginning of the article, the low carbon perspective is proposed because the slow walking system itself is in line with the concept of low carbon, we emphasize “low carbon” here is to provide a perspective, and secondly, the research object of the paper is mainly two kinds of walking and cycling, and the quantitative data related to low carbon, such as carbon emissions and so on, are beyond the scope of the current study, but your point is very correct, but after careful consideration, we changed the title of the article, and weakened the low carbon related data in the introduction. It will take some time to collect additional data, but your point is very correct. After careful consideration, we have changed the title of the paper and weakened the low-carbon content in the introduction to focus more on the optimization of the slow-moving system itself. Thanks again for your suggestions.

Comments 3:  If it is not a real project, why is it optimized? How to prove it is better than the original situation? 

Response 3:

We are very grateful for your attention, first of all, we assure you that this is a real and ongoing project, the various data and research pictures in the article can also support the authenticity of the project itself, there are many reasons for optimization, and the article has been presented in order, from the macro side of the social background of sustainable development, the current situation of campus traffic problems and other influences, from the micro point of view, after the recovery of the questionnaire answer can be see that teachers and students are not satisfied with walking and cycling, so it forces us to improve the campus slow transportation system.

The proof of the optimization effect can be reflected from two aspects, the first aspect is that after we determined the optimization plan, we made a second visit to the original research subjects, and they were generally satisfied with the optimized plan. The second aspect is from the simulation of the optimization effect, we firstly imported the road network and other data before and after the optimization into ArcGis for integration, and then simulated the traffic conditions before and after the optimization using TransCAD, and at the same time, used the traffic data in the previous PLPS field research to support, and the simulation showed that the traffic capacity after the optimization was greatly improved. Secondly, we divided the overall slow-moving area of the campus into different traffic zones, and used TransCAD to simulate and calculate the shortest passage time between traffic zones in turn, and compared the time costs before and after optimization, and found that the time costs of most road strengths were reduced after optimization.

Once again, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your correction, and hope that our explanation can be recognized by you.

Comments 4:  Is the data real? Or hypothetical? 

Response 4: Thank you for your question. First of all, I would like to assure you of the authenticity of the data, and secondly, the data in the evaluation section of the last optimization is the result of the actual data and the simulation effect together. Take the main road capacity data as an example, the data before and after the optimization are the results of our software simulation, and we used the previous PLPS research on each major traffic node counting statistics on the pre-optimization capacity to carry out a certain amount of calculations, so as to corroborate the reliability of the simulation data, the simulation of the effect of the authenticity and effectiveness of the various aspects of the embodiment. Thank you again for your suggestions and questions. In our communication with you, we repeatedly reviewed the research process, kept checking the gaps and learned a lot.

Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your professionalism and meticulous feedback during the review process. Your valuable comments not only provided an in-depth review of our article, but also provided us with valuable guidance and inspiration. We promise to continue our efforts to ensure that our research meets academic standards and contributes to the scholarly community. Thank you again for your time and support, and we look forward to being guided by you again in the future!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is a good improvement by comparison to the previous one. As a last suggestion, can you compare your analysis and findings with this recent paper on a similar topic:

Havet, N., & Bouzouina, L. (2024). Bicycle use in the university community: Empirical analysis using MobiCampus-UdL data (Lyon, France). Journal of Transport and Land Use, 17(1), 299-320.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The revised version is a good improvement by comparison to the previous one. As a last suggestion, can you compare your analysis and findings with this recent paper on a similar topic:

Havet, N., & Bouzouina, L. (2024). Bicycle use in the university community: Empirical analysis using MobiCampus-UdL data (Lyon, France). Journal of Transport and Land Use, 17(1), 299-320.

Response 1:  

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the article you recommended. It shares many similarities with our research and has provided us with additional insights. Below is a comparison of the similarities and differences between the two papers:

1. Content and Purpose: Our study focuses on the comprehensive optimization of the campus slow-moving transportation system, aiming to enhance transportation efficiency, improve environmental quality, and increase the vitality and appeal of campus spaces. In contrast, the referenced article examines factors influencing bicycle use, with the goal of informing public policy and supporting the development of more effective bicycle transportation strategies. Both studies are complementary, particularly in their shared emphasis on promoting environmental sustainability through transportation system improvements.
2. Research Methodology: Our research employed the PLPS methodology and IPA analysis, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate and optimize the slow-moving transportation system. The referenced article used a multivariate logistic regression model to analyze the probability of bicycle use among students and staff. Both studies apply quantitative analysis to assess transportation systems, albeit through different lenses.
3. Findings: Our study identified deficiencies in the safety, convenience, and comfort of the campus slow-moving transportation system, proposing targeted improvements. The referenced paper, on the other hand, found that socio-demographic characteristics play a limited role in influencing bicycle use, while access to transportation resources and spatial characteristics are key determinants. Both studies highlight critical factors that influence transportation mode choices.

Together, the findings of these two studies reveal the complexity of transportation behavior and underscore the importance of a well-designed environment in optimizing transportation systems. Several key insights emerge:

• Transportation mode choice is not only influenced by individual socio-demographic characteristics but is also closely linked to the availability of transportation resources and the design of the system itself.
• Environmental design plays a crucial role in enhancing the attractiveness of a transportation system. Well-designed pedestrian and bicycle pathways, landscape nodes, and transit facilities can significantly improve system effectiveness and user satisfaction.
• Transportation behavior is shaped by a combination of individual preferences, system characteristics, and socio-economic factors, requiring an integrated approach to address these diverse needs.
• Optimizing transportation systems requires attention to multiple dimensions, including safety, convenience, comfort, and the accessibility of transportation facilities. These findings emphasize the need for a multifaceted and multi-layered strategy in transportation planning and policy-making to promote sustainable transportation modes and meet user demands.

In conclusion, we sincerely appreciate your professionalism and the meticulous feedback provided during the review process. Your insightful comments not only enriched our article but also offered valuable guidance and inspiration for our future work. We are committed to ensuring that our research continues to meet the highest academic standards and contributes meaningfully to the scholarly community. Thank you once again for your time and support, and we look forward to receiving your guidance in the future.

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' revision. 

I ensured that the authors addressed the concerns raised appropriately and improved the paper. I am satisfied with the current version and would like to recommend it to be accepted for publication.

It would be much better if the authors could promote the quality of the figures like the resolution ratio. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language level should be improved. 

Author Response

评论 1：我确保作者适当地解决了提出的问题并改进了论文。我对当前版本感到满意，并希望推荐它被接受发布。如果作者可以提高分辨率等数字的质量，那就更好了。

回复 1：衷心感谢您在审核过程中提供的宝贵意见和建议。针对您提出的具体问题，我们在必要时仔细检查和优化了论文中的所有图表。我们特别注意图像的分辨率，并确保所有图形和图像都具有足够的清晰度和分辨率，以便读者可以清楚地看到所有细节。我们再次感谢您的推荐和对本文的认可。我们期待这篇论文被接受发表，并希望我们的发现将对学术界产生积极影响。