Multi-Criteria Analysis and Decision-Making Approach for the Urban Regeneration: The Application to the Rimini Canal Port (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article, which is probably the result of the first phase of the research project that the authors are currently developing, seems to need some maturing. I think it's an paper that doesn't present the standards required for a review like Sustainability
Author Response
This article, which is probably the result of the first phase of the research project that the authors are currently developing, seems to need some maturing. I think it's a paper that doesn't present the standards required for a review like Sustainability.
In this article, the authors focused on the description of the methodology describing in detail all the phases of the decision-making process (urban indicators, stakeholders’ involvement, SWOT, and BOCR analysis). More information was added in order to better understand this first phase of the research.
Given the complexity and length of the project, the authors drafted another article in which all the project phases, after the ANP-BOCR analysis, are described in detail. More information about the methodology can be found in the article “Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: the case study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy” Corticelli, R., Pazzini, M., Mazzoli, C., Lantieri, C., Ferrante, A., Vignali, V. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114529 .
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed an integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach for the urban regeneration. The proposed model utilizes ANP-BOCR and SWOT Anlysis in this regard. However, there are some issues that should be revised by the authors.
**Introduction & Literature review:
- The relevant and recent references should be added in the paper.
- The research gap is unclear. A comprehensive table should be presented by the authors to show the literature review based on their assumptions, methods, and results.
- I suggest to the authors to present a litterature review in as separate section.
*** Discussions & conclusions:-How we can judge about these results? Comparisons with existing models from the literature are missing. Discuss your improvements.
-In page 5 line 199, the authors mentioned the use of "sensitivity analysis" as a step in the ANP method. but at application level sensitivity analysis is not used.
-I suggest to rename the last section "Conclusion and discussion"
-In conclusions, the authors should elaborate more on the practical implications of their study, as well as the limitations of the study.
Author Response
REVIEWER#2
The authors proposed an integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach for the urban regeneration. The proposed model utilizes ANP-BOCR and SWOT Anlysis in this regard. However, there are some issues that should be revised by the authors.
**Introduction & Literature review:
1. The relevant and recent references should be added in the paper.
The authors added more recent references in the “Literature review” section (chapter 2).
2. The research gap is unclear. A comprehensive table should be presented by the authors to show the literature review based on their assumptions, methods, and results.
The authors thank you for the suggestion. In chapter 2 "Literature review" a section was added describing the type of multi-criteria analysis selected. Due to the complexity of the analysis described, the literature review for each step of the analysis is reported in each paragraph of the methodology section (chapter 3). For example, the literature review related to the BOCR analysis is described in section 3.4 (line 237).
3. I suggest to the authors to present a litterature review in as separate section.
The authors added a “Literature review” section after the introduction.
*** Discussions & conclusions:
1. How we can judge about these results? Comparisons with existing models from the literature are missing. Discuss your improvements.
The authors thank you for the suggestion. In the last section “Discussion and conclusion” (line 498”) a comparison with existing models from the literature was added (line 522).
2. In page 5 line 199, the authors mentioned the use of "sensitivity analysis" as a step in the ANP method. but at application-level sensitivity analysis is not used.
The authors removed the “sensitive analysis” step.
3. I suggest to rename the last section "Conclusion and discussion"
The authors thank you for the suggestion The name of the last section was changed.
4. In conclusions, the authors should elaborate more on the practical implications of their study, as well as the limitations of the study.??
A description of the project proposal phase was added at the end of the “Discussion and Conclusion section (line 546). More information about the methodology can be found in the article “Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: the case study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy” Corticelli, R., Pazzini, M., Mazzoli, C., Lantieri, C., Ferrante, A., Vignali, V. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114529 .Given the complexity and length of the project, the authors drafted an article in which all the project phases, after the ANP-BOCR analysis, are described in detail.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In sum, I find that the manuscript correct and deserves to be published. However, some revisions must be undertaken to reach enough quality. I would emphasize that the proposed model could be extrapolated to other context, with the adequate adaptation to the specific features of the context. However, some parts should be explained in further detail to ensure the replicability of the case study. Find in the attached file some suggestions to improve the quality of your work.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
In sum, I find that the manuscript correct and deserves to be published. However, some revisions must be undertaken to reach enough quality. I would emphasize that the proposed model could be extrapolated to other context, with the adequate adaptation to the specific features of the context. However, some parts should be explained in further detail to ensure the replicability of the case study. Find in the attached file some suggestions to improve the quality of your work.
1. I totally agree with the statement: “Each case study is unique and depends on the specific characteristics of its context. Therefore, a matrix of indicators for the Canal Port of Rimini was specially built”, however you should explain a little more the ad-hoc selection of indicators. I suggest the following:
• Table A1 in appendix A shows the detail of the selected indicators. I assume that the indicators have been extracted from the literature and the selection has to do with the adaptation to the case study and the availability of information, is that so? You explain this later in section 4.1, using the criteria for the selection. It would be nice to explain this a little with some examples. For example, one indicator detected in the literature that was not selected for any reason and, also any example of selected indicator for any reason you used.
The authors thank you for the suggestion. In paragraph 5.2 "Urban regeneration indicators" (line 385) examples of detected indicators and non-selected indicators were added in order to make the selection of indicators more comprehensible.
• On the other hand, Table 2 presents the rating obtained for the studied area. It would be nice to add the source where the data were collected from, maybe Statistical institute, census, , municipality…. It would improve the quality of the explanation because it would permit to justify cadastral office any obtained data.
In Table 3 (former Table 2), the authors added the source where data were collected for each indicator.
2. About the participatory plan with stakeholders, more information about the participants should be added. Usually, the expert panel is used in this kind of processes. However, in this kind of manuscripts more information about the selection of experts should be supplied. It would be nice to know how many people participated, when the participation was and what was their area of expertise and how many years of expertise they hold. No personal data should be supplied, just general information to justify the degree of knowledge of the decision-makers or advisors. Something for example, such as:
Ten stakeholders participated, 5 men and 5 women. The panel met on September 24th …….
The involvement of key stakeholders was carried out through a survey. In the article, two paragraphs were added in order to describe how the questionnaire was developed: 3.1 (line 168) within the "Methodology" section and 5.1 (line 344) within the "Application" section. Table 2 shows the types of stakeholders and their areas of expertise. In Annex A, Table 2 shows the entire questionnaire.
3. Some suggestions for Figure 1.
In order to identify the stage, methodology and expected result, I would use a colour code, something as, for example:
Being Stage 1: Analysis of the context; Methodology: On-site inspection; Result: Data collection
Stage 2: Evaluation of critical issues; Methodology: SWOT, indicators desk review?; Result: Selection of indicators
Stage 3: Definition of design projects; Methodology: BOCR; Result: Priority scale of interventions
The authors changed Figure 1 as suggested. In the file below can find the new figure in which stages, methodology, and results are highlighted with different colors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article examines the ANP-BOCR method and assess the priority rankings of the project proposals of the Canal Port in Rimini. My comments are as follows.
Above all, it is necessary to expound how the ANP-BOCR method works in this research, while focusing on BOCR structure and method. Although ANP or AHP method may be familiar with many researchers, BOCR method needs to be explained in more details.
Line #321
In Table 2, how many units of analysis for average and normalised rating are used? As described in Figure 4, are both project area and target area divided into many units of analysis.
Line # 354 to #363
It is relatively clear to understand how Benefits and Costs in the BOCR analysis are classified and measured; however, it is hard to comprehend how Opportunities and Risks are derived from SWOT analysis and measured in the Super-decision software. It should be described in the manuscript.
Line # 371 to #380
It needs to be explained how the survey for overall priority ranking has been performed in this research in terms of profession of the surveyed, the number of respondents, and questionnaire. It should be described in more detail.
Author Response
This article examines the ANP-BOCR method and assess the priority rankings of the project proposals of the Canal Port in Rimini. My comments are as follows.
- Above all, it is necessary to expound how the ANP-BOCR method works in this research, while focusing on BOCR structure and method. Although ANP or AHP method may be familiar with many researchers, BOCR method needs to be explained in more details.
The authors added more information about BOCR analysis in paragraph 5.4. Figure 5 was added in order to understand better the relation between sub-network, clusters, nodes, and alternatives.
2. Line #321 In Table 2, how many units of analysis for average and normalised rating are used? As described in Figure 4, are both project area and target area divided into many units of analysis.
The data inside Table 3 (former Table 2) are referred to the project area. The authors specified this in line 407.
3. Line # 354 to #363 It is relatively clear to understand how Benefits and Costs in the BOCR analysis are classified and measured; however, it is hard to comprehend how Opportunities and Risks are derived from SWOT analysis and measured in the Super-decision software. It should be described in the manuscript.
The authors thank you for the suggestion. In paragraph 5.4 more details on how the two sub-networks "opportunities" and "risks" were classified and measured have been inserted. Tables 5 and 6 show in detail the opportunities and risks of the SWOT matrix classified as nodes within the clusters. Figure 5 shows an example of how all the data was inserted and measured into the Super-decision software.
4. Line # 371 to #380 It needs to be explained how the survey for overall priority ranking has been performed in this research in terms of profession of the surveyed, the number of respondents, and questionnaire. It should be described in more detail.
The authors added two paragraphs in order to describe better how the questionnaire was developed: 3.1 (line 168) within the "Methodology" section and 5.1 (line 344) within the "Application" section. Table 2 shows the types of stakeholders and their areas of expertise. In Annex A, Table 2 shows the entire questionnaire.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In the article, the authors are focused on urban areas. They propose a methodology for evaluating the quality of the city. Cities, as the authors state, has to become places with a large number of inhabitants. In connection with that, it is already necessary to adapt cities for quality life. The authors managed to fulfill the goal of the article. In the article, they addressed the possibilities of developing sustainable mobility in the selected city in the context of the Agenda 2030 strategy.
Author Response
In the article, the authors are focused on urban areas. They propose a methodology for evaluating the quality of the city. Cities, as the authors state, has to become places with a large number of inhabitants. In connection with that, it is already necessary to adapt cities for quality life. The authors managed to fulfill the goal of the article. In the article, they addressed the possibilities of developing sustainable mobility in the selected city in the context of the Agenda 2030 strategy.
Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you, I suggest to accept this paper
Author Response
Thank you, I suggest to accept this paper.
Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind comment.
