Next Article in Journal
IoT-Aware Architecture to Guarantee Safety of Maintenance Operators in Industrial Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Interpretation of the Provisions of EN 13796-3 for Fatigue Testing of Cableway Gondolas
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analyzing the Feasibility of Integrating Urban Sustainability Assessment Indicators with City Information Modelling (CIM)

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2023, 6(2), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/asi6020045
by Adriana Salles 1,*, Maryam Salati 1,* and Luís Bragança 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2023, 6(2), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/asi6020045
Submission received: 27 February 2023 / Revised: 20 March 2023 / Accepted: 21 March 2023 / Published: 27 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The goal of this paper is to investigate that Sustainability assessment methods have gained the attention between urban planners and 9 policymakers since they promote a comprehensive view of the cities. Intelligent solutions, enabled 10 by advances in information technologies, can accelerate text progress in achieving this, City Information Modeling (CIM) emerges as a tool to facilitate urban sustainability assessment implementation. The fundamental results are still satisfactory.

2. Can you explain the limitations of this method?

3. Can you explain the CIM quantitative indicators? How is it good and how is it not?

4. Have you considered the population/urban area in the assessment system?

5. According to the conclusion, 41indicators get 52 calculation parameters, are there any other important parameters that have not been taken into consideration?

6. After performing case study- Boavista Neighborhood – Porto, Portugal, does it seem not to find the results?

7. Can the literatures be supplemented for the lack of sustainability city? Please add them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presents an interesting interpretation and use of indicators to assess sustainable development in the urban tissue. The paper provides a logical overview of the indicators and their selection for use in the CIM assessment is well justified. It seems to me, however, that the number of selected indicators is too large, which in turn may disperse the actual, practical aspect of the results. I wonder if some "packages" of indicators could be generalized a bit to create a simpler, more universal evaluation system. Of course, I realize that this would require further research and analysis. But maybe the authors will take this into account in future research?
Overall, the article is very interesting and I think it will spark a lot of discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper turns out to be well written, covers an interesting topic on the possibility of determining wide-ranging urban sustainability indicators on different aspects of urban agglomerations. 

I suggest improving the conclusions by including more discussion of the potential of such systems from the industrial, business or policy maker's point of view. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop