Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I want to congratulate you for your paper. This issue is very important for Multi criteria framework for routing on access land. A case study on Dartmoor National Park. I have some minor recommendations for you below:

In the introduction, the key references are only relevant to road method and do not discuss the recent works. The literature reviews on existing methods are very old, no in-depth analysis (and their detailed shortcomings) is made. the literature review should be summarized better. No analysis of their potential shortcomings is made.

Following article also was prepared for criteria identification by ecosystems 

’ Plannıng of envıronmentally sound forest road route usıng GIS& S-MCDM’ 

Determination forest road routes via gis-based spatial multi-criterion decision methods

Mapping the optimal forest road network based on the multicriteria evaluation technique: the case study of Mediterranean Island of Thassos in Greece

The introduction part is very long, and the literature parts can be given as a summary.

Your manuscript has been evaluated. There are a few suggestions that you would need to address before the paper can be accepted for publication. The major concern is that the paper is not written in standard, grammatically correct English, and therefore it could not be accepted in this form. You would need to look for help from a proficient or native English with experience in technical writing to edit and proofread your paper before submission. Along with your revised manuscript, you will need to supply a Reply Letter to the Reviewer in which you list (point by point response), all the changes (use line numbering to refer to changes) you have made to the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article explains a method for calculating routes in open spaces and particularly in access land in Dartmoor National Park. The article proposes a state of the art regarding path calculation and proposes a method that takes into consideration several criteria for path calculation in the case study considered. The results show the use of different algorithms that take into account different walking abilities.

Minor suggestions:

-          The abstract mentions "OSMasterMap®TopographyLayerand " and "Devon County Council Access land datasets" without explaining, however, that they are only useful for the geographic area of the case study under consideration, I suggest that an explanation about the case study be included in the abstract as well.

-          although understandable as it is currently written, I suggest improving the caption in Figure 1 by including more information about what is displayed. I would also make Figure 2 larger.

-          Please check that in Table 1 the values entered all have the same number of decimal places

-          It is not clear to me the meaning of (500/6) on line 250-251, can you please add a sentence explaining it?

-          the acronym PN should be explained once and then from there on please use only PN

-          line 297: I think instead of “5” you meant “equation 5”, please check

-          Please check that the sentence on line 346 is in the correct position, seems to be a repetition of what was written above

-          Line 390: you refer to Figure 10, I think probably the correct reference is figure 9

-          Figure 10 is not mentioned in the text, I suggest quoting it and adding an explanation of what the figure shows

-          In the result section and in Table 7 you discuss 5 different algorithms, I suggest to add a sentence at the beginning of the result section explaining in details which algorithm is used for all of them. For example, from what I understand Weighted Sum-Dijkstra algorithm is used for EWA, IWA, CWA, but this is written only in the last paragraph of the results and it would be more understandable for the reader to write it at the beginning, referring also to the differences (in terms of coefficients) there are between the 3.

-          Although the method is explained with much detail, the results could be presented in more detail, I suggest a re-reading of the "results" section and its improvement

-          Within the article and particularly in the conclusion the term "programme" is used a lot. I would suggest that you use a different and more specific term, are you referring to software you developed, programming code or something else? I would possibly suggest that you also specify (maybe in the introduction) the programming language used (e.g. python, C++) and any other software used (e.g. QGIS, ArcGIS)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The objectives and methodology to attain the goal are meticulously detailed, laying out a clear and well-defined path. The accompanying literature review is commendable, providing valuable insights for the reader to understand the subsequent sections. In my view, however,  it is crucial to improve the results and discussion section.

1.      Abstract:

a.      The abstract is comprehensive, but it could benefit from reorganization. Consider initiating with 1-2 introductory sentences outlining the topic, emphasizing the research gap addressed, and clearly articulating the goal and significance of your work. Subsequently, delve into the methods employed and conclude with concise yet specific results. This restructured approach will enhance clarity and engagement for readers seeking a succinct overview.

2.      Introduction

a.      I believe the primary novelty of your work lies in proposing a routing service based on multi-criteria decision in access land, a domain that has been explored by only a handful of researchers or perhaps not at all. However, the novelty also presents a challenge in your work as it is not entirely clear why such an approach is necessary. In the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section, you've provided examples highlighting the significance of this work (458-468). I recommend either moving these examples here or extracting the underlying principles, as incorporating them in this section will assist the reader in understanding the importance of your work.

b.      Certain subobjectives appear more as methods to achieve your overarching goal rather than standalone objectives.

3.      Materials and Methods

a.      In Figure 5b, some intersection points do not intersect with any grid links.

4.      Results and Discussion –   

a.      The example you've added present rather straightforward scenarios, such as determining the shortest path or navigating through a pathway. These instances appear overly simplistic, and I believe the algorithm should offer more complex insights beyond such elementary conclusions.

b.      I strongly recommend conducting a brief experiment with participants to evaluate whether their experiences with the routing align with your claim that your program is indeed superior. This practical approach will help validate the effectiveness of your system and strengthen your argument.

c.      Suggestions to enhance the results section: Present something less intuitive, demonstrate a more challenging environment that includes multiple pathways, and include areas with cliffs and steep terrain. Illustrate the scoring of each factor individually and in combination on the grid using a graduated color map.

d.      There is a lack of substantive discussion in your results section.

e.      I recommend placing Figure 10 and Table 7 at the end of this section.

5.      More -  “Data available in a publicly accessible repository” where?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments.