The Complexity of Space Utilization and Environmental Pollution Control in the Main Corridor of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented article is a valuable insight into environmental pollution issues. The main objectives of the study are focused on the effect of population mobility, increased traffic volume, and land-use change on air quality pollution, 
the direct and indirect effects of urban activity systems, transportation, and the origin-destination patterns of movement on environmental quality degradation and the air pollution index, and air pollution strategy and sustainable urban environmental management.

I strongly recommend this study to publish. It is prepared exactly in accordance with the journal requirements. Worth noticing is a very clear way of describing the methodology used in the study. 

Conclusions are supported by the results. I have some doubts about the discussion section. It should as well contain references to already existing research and it does not.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for suggestions,correction, and input on our article. In substance, we have made improvements starting from the instroduction, conceptual framework, and specifically in the discussion section we have added same subtances related to solution for handling environmental quality degradation and air pollution control in the road corridor of the Urip Sumoharjo-Perintis Kemerdekaan Makassar City. Once again we thank you  for your suggestions and input. Hopefully the improvement we have made are according to the expectations of the reviewer.

 

Regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
- in the text of the article presented for re-review, all the indicated editorial defects have been eliminated,
- on the other hand, I find the words: ... "we have revised several things both in substance and addend supporting data ..."
Indeed, I notice such an approach, hence my assessment of the introduced substantive changes, recommended by me in the three questions posed to you in the General Comments of the previous review, is at best at a sufficient minimum level.
Therefore, please supplement the content of the article (its parts 2 and 5) with the issues expressed in the questions:
- there is no indication of the new research and results presented in this article bring to science?
- there is no indication in the article whether such tests has already been carried out, but whether by other methods, or perhaps in the same way, and how does the presented paper differ from the results obtained in other studies?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for suggestions, corections, and input on our article. In substance, we have made improvements starting form the instroduction, conceptual framework, and specifically in the discussion section we have added same subtances related to solution for handling enviromental quality degradation and air pollution control in the road corridor of the Urip Sumoharjo-Perintis Kemerdekaan Makassar City. Once again we thank you for your suggestion and input. Hopefully the improvements we have made are according to the expectations of the reviewer.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a research result that presents detailed and detailed analysis results. In addition, the relevant grounds have been faithfully presented. However, since those who have read this paper do not know the region well, it would be better if a friendly explanation and supplementation were added.

 

At the bottom of 2p, "(3) shopping center, shopping center, service, hotel...." is overlapped with'shopping center'.   In the case of the corridor description section at the bottom of 2p and the top of 3p, the section on the region description needs to be presented in order to make it easier to understand in more detail with a map.   It is necessary to explain what the index value of Table 2 means.   What is the'unit' of the range in Table 3?   The'equipment' shown in the Research Design presented on p. 8 needs to be presented as a picture to help readers understand.   Maps such as Figure 3 should be revised if they can be replaced with clearer pictures.   For the part measured in Table 6, please specify the applied model or equipment name.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your suggestions, corrections, and input for our article. Substantially, we have improved it in relation to the explanation of Tables 2 and 3, adding images of the equipment used, revised maps, and instuments used in this studi. Once again, we thank the reviewers for their suggestions and input. Hopefully the improvements we have made are expected.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the coverage and potential contribution of the paper, it is very interesting and on a very high merit level.

The only weaknesses I have noticed are related to the content of two parts of the study. The first is the literature review - in my opinion, it should be extended and adjusted to the requirements of the scientific paper.

The second part is missed at all and I mean discussion. The comparison with other research should be presented in the article

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “The Complexity of Space Utilization and Environmental Pollution Control in the Main Corridor of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia” by Surya et al.

Unfortunately, this manuscript seriously lacks scientific writing skill. This manuscript is not well organized, and is really hard to follow.

Most of contexts are irrelevant or not supported by own data. Some of them were directly copied from references.

Reviewer 3 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

The article is interesting, but after reading it, the following comments should be made:

• there is no definition of the scientific purpose of the paper?
• there is no indication of the new research and results presented in this article bring to science?
• there is no indication in the article whether such tests has already been carried out, but whether by other methods,  or perhaps in the same way, and how does the presented paper differ from the results obtained in other studies?

   DETAILED COMMENTS

1. Introduction

• Table 1, table 2 : Source is missing, i.e.” own research”, “based on…”, “own based on”…etc.

 

2. Conceptual Framework

  - Fig. 1: the text is invisible in some blocks, e.g. "Air Quality ...", "Pollutants and ...", "Land Use   Complexity and Population ...", "Environmental Pollution Control in the ..." - you should check carefully whether the text is visible in all blocks.

3. Material and Method

    - Fig. 2: the text is invisible in some blocks, e.g. "Urban Transportation and Environmental Management Corridor Urip Sumoharjo-Perintis ..." or an empty block - you should check carefully whether the text is visible in all blocks,  also the Caption below the picture is incomplete, i.e. "Figure 2. of the methodology."

          - Table 4: What do they mean "Personal / Black Plate (P)", "General / Yellow Plate (U)" and "Service / Red Plate (D)"? There is no broader explanation. Also, what do all the numbers in Table 4 mean? What are the two lines in table 4, i.e.  1. Normal Situation 2. Busy Hours? There is no broader explanation.

            - Fig. 3: The text in Legend is illegible.

            - page 12: Formula (1) is disordered.

            - page 13: Formulas (3), (6): is it a vector multiplication (x) or an scalar multiplication  "."?

            - page 13: Formulas (5), (8) are disordered.

4. Results

 

- Fig. 5: The text in Legend is illegible.

               - Fig. 7: The text in Legend is illegible.

 

 

5. Discussion

 

- Fig. 12: the text is invisible in some blocks, e.g. "Policy Regulation and ...", "Technology and Green ..." - check carefully if the text is visible in all blocks.

6. Conclusions

               -page 30: there is   5.Conclusion , it should be 6.Conclusions

               -general note: Some of the conclusions drawn are so obvious that they did not require analysis and research.