Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some observations of the manuscript, focused on the form and content. In any case, it stands out that in general it is a good work.

1) A brief summary outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths

In general, it is a well-developed work. The strong point of this work is its structure and clarity for the coherence between the objective and results that is clear. The aim of the paper is: to establish a comprehensive evaluation system for the suitability of urban underground space development at different depth levels through the integration of geological, hydrological, and urban planning factors. The article mainly contributes with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model, that offers a more detailed and comprehensive reflection of the complexity and diversity of underground space development, providing forward-looking and insightful evaluation results for urban planning and development.

2) General concept comments of the article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

I see “Introduction”, “Research Method”, and “Results” as an area for improvement, it presents several inaccuracies.

1. “Introduction”: it should to add citations in first paragraph; it should to add citations in first sentence of second paragraph; it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Sterling et al, Youssef et al, Li et al.

2. “Overview of the research area”: it should to add citations in first and second paragraph where necessary.

3.1 “Construction of suitability evaluation system”: it should to add a data source for each indicator in first and second paragraph (before figure 3 and after figure 4).

4. “Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Model”: it should to add citations in first paragraph where necessary.

It should to add “5. Results” title before “Comparative analysis of suitability evaluation results”.

The other area to improve is the discussion. I think that authors should decide whether to incorporate a title with the discussion, before the conclusion. This can help to relate your research to other articles (see the introduction).

It should be noted that this article does not present a research question or a hypothesis, but it is not considered something negative, it is only verified.

3) Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear

The article has some elements to improve throughout the manuscript that are indicated in the following points:

- Line 15: the sentence “Authors are encouraged…” should be eliminated.

- Line 32: it should to add “Qingdao City” in keywords.

- Line 203: it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Saaty for Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

- Line 206: it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Wang Peizhuang (1980).

- Figure 3 and 4: it should to distinguish factors from indicators with a legend.

- Figure 8: it should to add a legend for each image on the map; it should to add the initial words (a) (b) for each image on the map and title.

 

Author Response

1. A brief summaryoutlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

In general, it is a well-developed work. The strong point of this work is its structure and clarity for the coherence between the objective and results that is clear. The aim of the paper is: to establish a comprehensive evaluation system for the suitability of urban underground space development at different depth levels through the integration of geological, hydrological, and urban planning factors. The article mainly contributes with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model, that offers a more detailed and comprehensive reflection of the complexity and diversity of underground space development, providing forward-looking and insightful evaluation results for urban planning and development.

 

Response: Thank you very much for your affirmation of the structure and clarity of this paper. Your understanding of the research methods, objectives, and results used in this paper is very accurate.

 

2. General concept comments of the article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

I see “Introduction”, “Research Method”, and “Results” as an area for improvement, it presents several inaccuracies.

• “Introduction”: it should to add citations in first paragraph; it should to add citations in first sentence of second paragraph; it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Sterling et al, Youssef et al, Li et al.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added citations and numbers to the appropriate positions and names of individuals.

 

• Overview of the research area”: it should to add citations in first and second paragraph where necessary.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added citations in necessary locations.

 

• “Construction of suitability evaluation system”: it should to add a data source for each indicator in first and second paragraph (before figure 3 and after figure 4).

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added table 1 ‘Main data sources’ containing data sources for each indicator in line 204.

 

• “Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Model”: it should to add citations in first paragraph where necessary.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have included literature related to the comprehensive evaluation model.

 

• It should to add “ Results” title before “Comparative analysis of suitability evaluation results”

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added the title of Chapter 5 and made modifications to the numbering of the subsequent titles.

 

• The other area to improve is the discussion. I think that authors should decide whether to incorporate a title with the discussion, before the conclusion. This can help to relate your research to other articles. It should be noted that this article does not present a research question or a hypothesis, but it is not considered something negative, it is only verified.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.We do not intend to add the discussion before the conclusion because we think there is enough in the introduction to link the content of this article to that of other articles.

 

3. Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear

The article has some elements to improve throughout the manuscript that are indicated in the following points:

• - Line 15: the sentence “Authors are encouraged…” should be eliminated.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.We have deleted unnecessary sentences.

 

• - Line 32: it should to add “Qingdao City” in keywords.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.We have added Qingdao City to the keywords.

 

• - Line 203: it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Saaty for Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.We have added the quotation.

 

• - Line 206: it should to add citations [reference number] in sentence: Wang Peizhuang (1980).

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added the serial number of the quotation.

 

• - Figure 3 and 4: it should to distinguish factors from indicators with a legend.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively show the suitability evaluation index system for different depths of underground space, the two images show that the different depths of the underground space need those factors as an evaluation index for the development of suitability evaluation.

 

• - Figure 8: it should to add a legend for each image on the map; it should to add the initial words (a) (b) for each image on the map and title.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.We have already added (a) to (l)12 letters in the lower right corner of each picture. We are sorry that we can not add the legend because of the resolution of the picture.

 

Once again, we appreciate your efforts on processing our paper very much.

 

Best wishes,

 

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is good but needs the following modifications:

-The introduction provides context but could benefit from a clearer statement of the hypothesis or specific objectives of the study at the end of the introduction.

The quote "[1]" might be more recent and relevant.

The limitations of the study are not clearly identified. Add a limitations section that discusses aspects such as data availability and possible sources of error in the model.

The comparison with previous studies is not explicit enough. Compare the results with similar studies in more detail, explaining possible differences.

- It would be convenient in the introduction to talk about the following topic:

Similar methodologies using fuzzy logic have been applied in the feasibility analysis of tidal turbine installations, demonstrating the robustness of this approach in handling complex and uncertain environments. 

Rodríguez-Pérez, Á. M., Rodríguez, C. A., Márquez-Rodríguez, A., & Mancera, J. J. C. (2023). Feasibility Analysis of Tidal Turbine Installation Using Fuzzy Logic: Case Study and Design Considerations. Axioms, 12(8), 778.

Another issue to take into account in which fuzzy logic is used would be:

Revitalizing the Canal de Castilla: A Community Approach to Sustainable Hydropower Assessed through Fuzzy Logic 

- It would be advisable to add more details about the methods and results of the studies cited to strengthen the context. Include more recent references that address similar technologies and methodologies.

- Explain in detail each step of the AHP and fuzzy logic method, making sure that the formulas are clearly defined. Improve the graphic quality of the figures and ensure that all labels are legible.

 

Author Response

The article is good but needs the following modifications:

1. The introduction provides context but could benefit from a clearer statement of the hypothesis or specific objectives of the study at the end of the introduction.The quote "[1]" might be more recent and relevant.The limitations of the study are not clearly identified. Add a limitations section that discusses aspects such as data availability and possible sources of error in the model.The comparison with previous studies is not explicit enough. Compare the results with similar studies in more detail, explaining possible differences.We also explain in the introduction how this study differs from other previous studies.

 

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.We have provided a clearer statement of the objectives and importance of the study at the end of the introduction, and a related statement that the present study may have generated errors due to the data source has been added to the latter part of the introduction.We also explain in the introduction how this study differs from other previous studies.The details are as follows.

“Scientific and reasonable evaluation of the suitability of underground space development is of great significance to the future development of cities.”

“There are many kinds of data used in the evaluation system, so there are some errors in the evaluation results when using these data for suitability evaluation. In order to reduce the impact of these errors on the evaluation results,”

“different from previous studies, this study also integrated the engineering geological conditions and urban planning requirements of the study area,”

 

2. It would be convenient in the introduction to talk about the following topic:

Similar methodologies using fuzzy logic have been applied in the feasibility analysis of tidal turbine installations, demonstrating the robustness of this approach in handling complex and uncertain environments.

Rodríguez-Pérez, Á. M., Rodríguez, C. A., Márquez-Rodríguez, A., & Mancera, J. J. C. (2023). Feasibility Analysis of Tidal Turbine Installation Using Fuzzy Logic: Case Study and Design Considerations. Axioms, 12(8), 778.

Another issue to take into account in which fuzzy logic is used would be:

Revitalizing the Canal de Castilla: A Community Approach to Sustainable Hydropower Assessed through Fuzzy Logic

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments.We have added and referenced the literature you mentioned in the introduction, which clearly shows the advantages of fuzzy logic in the application of related fields, it also provides a theoretical background and reference for the study of this paper. The details are as follows.

In recent years, fuzzy logic has emerged as a vital tool in various fields due to its unique advantages in handling complex and uncertain environments. For instance, Rodríguez-Pérez et al. [30] utilized fuzzy logic to analyze the feasibility of tidal turbine installations. Their research demonstrated the robustness of fuzzy logic in addressing multiple uncertainties, such as tidal forces, environmental impacts, and economic viability. By considering these factors holistically, fuzzy logic provided a reliable assessment tool, enabling researchers to conduct more precise feasibility analyses in complex natural settings. This example illustrates that fuzzy logic, as a method for managing complexity and uncertainty, holds broad application prospects. This study aims to build on these successful experiences by further exploring the application of fuzzy logic in evaluation of the suitability of underground space development, providing new perspectives and methodologies for the relevant field. 

 

 

3. It would be advisable to add more details about the methods and results of the studies cited to strengthen the context. Include more recent references that address similar technologies and methodologies.

 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments. We have added the details of the cited research methods in the introduction and cited recent references involving similar techniques and methods.The details are as shown in the last response.

 

4. Explain in detail each step of the AHP and fuzzy logic method, making sure that the formulas are clearly defined. Improve the graphic quality of the figures and ensure that all labels are legible.

 

Response: Thank the reviewer for the detailed comments. We have provided a detailed explanation of the steps of AHP and ensured clear formula definition and high graphic quality.The details are as follows.

The Variable Weight Analytical Hierarchy Process (VWAHP) adjusts weights based on varying conditions. First, define the hierarchy and criteria. Construct pairwise comparison matrices and calculate initial weights. Adjust weights dynamically according to specific conditions or contexts. Recalculate the priority vectors and consistency. Finally, aggregate the adjusted weights to determine the optimal decision.

 

Once again, we appreciate your efforts on processing our paper very much.

 

Best wishes,

 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors dedicate their paper to the subject of Suitability Evaluation of Urban Underground Space Development: A Case Study of Qingdao City. The subject is interesting, as majority of large cities do have underground structures. What is amiss in presented theme is lack of data as to what kind of function urban underground space development do the authors have in mind. Tunnels, subway and metro systems, underground parking garages, underground storage and transportation facilities are some examples of underground structures - but their location is based on the urban layout of urbanized area and indication that e.i. there is a need to have quick commuting between certain areas and underground appears to be a good choice. The other type of structures, due to unrest in some areas, can be places of shelter - but this areas are also located due to the community needs. The authors have omitted these arguments, moving straight into the research area - city of Qingdao. There is no analysis why this particular area was chosen, and the arguments presented are rather weak - also, there is no data on foreseen urban development of particular site. The author analysis is fine, where it concerns mathematics, abut cities are not developed that way, and hopefully they never will. Presented analysis may become a support tool  for urban choices, but not the final solution. L163-64 "... factors encompass terrain and landforms, engineering geological conditions of rock and soil, adverse geological effects and fractures, hydrogeological conditions, existing construction conditions, and urban planning requirements.."  - present urban planning as one of many equal choices, while urban planning should be the main research drive with other factors understood as support parameters.

Discussions section, which might actually disclose what type of underground structures are located in other cities, why and where - could actually show where in reality this presented analysis could be placed.  I would advise, that urban planning is not a mathematical analysis, it is a very complex issues, where user expectations should be placed up-front as the major factor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The authors dedicate their paper to the subject of Suitability Evaluation of Urban Underground Space Development: A Case Study of Qingdao City. The subject is interesting, as majority of large cities do have underground structures.

1. What is amiss in presented theme is lack of data as to what kind of function urban underground space development do the authors have in mind.Tunnels, subway and metro systems, underground parking garages, underground storage and transportation facilities are some examples of underground structures - but their location is based on the urban layout of urbanized area and indication that e.i. there is a need to have quick commuting between certain areas and underground appears to be a good choice. The other type of structures, due to unrest in some areas, can be places of shelter - but this areas are also located due to the community needs. The authors have omitted these arguments, moving straight into the research area - city of Qingdao. There is no analysis why this particular area was chosen, and the arguments presented are rather weak.

 

 

Response: Thank the reviewer for the detailed and valuable suggestion. We acknowledge the lack of data regarding the specific functions of urban underground space development in our manuscript. Detailed data on Qingdao’s subterranean structure are not provided in the paper because complete and accurate data on Qingdao’s subterranean structure are rarely available. In order to avoid obvious errors, this article did not choose to include such data.We have also included in the introduction detailed reasons for choosing Qingdao as the study area.The details are as follows.

“Due to the lack of land resources in Qingdao&’s main urban area due to the excessive mountain area, and its important economic and strategic location, the development of underground space is very important. Therefore, this paper chooses Qingdao as the research area, ”

 

2. There is no data on foreseen urban development of particular site. The author analysis is fine, where it concerns mathematics, abut cities are not developed that way, and hopefully they never will. Presented analysis may become a support tool for urban choices, but not the final solution. L163-64 "... factors encompass terrain and landforms, engineering geological conditions of rock and soil, adverse geological effects and fractures, hydrogeological conditions, existing construction conditions, and urban planning requirements.." - present urban planning as one of many equal choices, while urban planning should be the main research drive with other factors understood as support parameters.Discussions section, which might actually disclose what type of underground structures are located in other cities, why and where - could actually show where in reality this presented analysis could be placed.  I would advise, that urban planning is not a mathematical analysis, it is a very complex issues, where user expectations should be placed up-front as the major factor.

 

Response: Thank the reviewer for the valuable insights on our manuscript. We appreciate your concerns regarding the lack of data on the anticipated urban development of the specific site and the emphasis on mathematical analysis over the broader aspects of urban development. We have carefully considered your comments and will address them as follows:

While our manuscript emphasizes mathematical analysis, we acknowledge the need to integrate broader urban development principles.In this paper, we have explained how our method can assist urban planning practice by quantifying parameters such as terrain, geological conditions, and hydrogeology.

We fully agree that urban planning is not just mathematical analysis, it involves very complex problems, among which user expectations should be the main factor. Therefore, in this study, urban planning considerations have been emphasized as a key factor in decision-making. However, at the same time, we believe that parameters such as terrain, geological conditions, and hydrogeology also play a crucial role in the development of underground spaces. Therefore, in our study, we assign high weights to urban planning factors to highlight their importance to underground space development, and also assign certain weights to other factors to ensure that more comprehensive decisions are ultimately made.

 

Once again, thank the reviewers for the valuable suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the changes made in this version 2 of the manuscript. The review is appreciated.

Author Response

Thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have made all requested revisions.

Author Response

Thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the second round of reviewing this manuscript. The reviewer finds the authors attitude rather interesting. It appears that they have provided a through matematical study on an area where no preliminary data has been collected. Their responce is: "Complete and accurate data on Qingdao’s subterranean structure are rarely available. In order to avoid obvious errors, this article did not choose to include such data." Therefore from the reviewers point of view the paper has serious flows where the scientific methodology is applied. The authors have provided mathematical algorithn without collecting apprpriate data. If they know that initial data is incomplete, therefore - they should have made adquate study prior to their proposal.

Author Response

This is the second round of reviewing this manuscript. The reviewer finds the authors attitude rather interesting. It appears that they have provided a through matematical study on an area where no preliminary data has been collected. Their responce is: "Complete and accurate data on Qingdao’s subterranean structure are rarely available. In order to avoid obvious errors, this article did not choose to include such data." Therefore from the reviewers point of view the paper has serious flows where the scientific methodology is applied. The authors have provided mathematical algorithm without collecting apprpriate data. If they know that initial data is incomplete, therefore - they should have made adquate study prior to their proposal.

 

Response:

Thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We are sorry that the previous reply didn't clearly express our means.

First of all, we acknowledge that “the urban planning is not a mathematical analysis”. The urban planning is a very complex issue, that needs to collect data on the functions of the city's underground space, such as some underground structures. These existing underground structure data can be used to properly verify the evaluation results of the study and provide some guidance, such as those used by Mavrikos et al. [29].

On the other hand, many scholars, such as Sterling et al [7] , Boivin et al. [9] , Rienzo et al. [10], Youssef et al[20], Durmisevic et al. [21], have taken another approach when evaluating the suitability of urban underground space development. This method is based on the engineering geological conditions of the underground in the study area and the urban planning demand conditions above ground, and evaluates the suitability of urban underground space development based on various factors. The method used in this paper is also a commonly used method to evaluate the development potential of underground space.

In this study, in addition to geological data, some data such as underground transportation tracks, population density, and commercial land prices are also collected, which can represent a part of the urban functional area.

Finally, compared with the method mentioned by the reviewer, the method in this study does have some data shortcomings for urban planning, but it is also a common method for the evaluation of the development potential of urban underground space, which can provide a certain reference for development and utilization.

In addition, we have added the description of the above two kinds of methods in the introduction, and also added to the shortcomings of this kind of method in terms of data and the outlook for future research.

Once again, thank the reviewers for the valuable suggestions.

Best regards,

The Authors