Determinants of Public Acceptance for Traffic-Reducing Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality
, Sophia Becker 1, Laura Weiand 1, Norman Niehoff 2, Frank Schwartzbach 2 and Erika von Schneidemesser 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is interesting paper. The topic is important from both theoretical and practical point of view. Nevertheless, some improvements should be made:
First of all, the paper is good prepare from theoretical point of view. However, there are many details related to the statistical analysis, which could be not so interesting for more practical-focused readers (like city decision makers, business entities). The title of the paper suggest that the reader will be able to get the knowledge regarding determinants of public acceptance for traffic-reducing policies. However, it’s very hard to find it in the major section of the paper. This section should give some simple details related to the respondents’ opinions taking to the account structure of the research sample (age, employment, stakeholders’ categories etc.).
It is not clear what groups of stakeholders have been asked under the research and how many representatives of them have been involved. Moreover, what was the method of the research sample selection?
The names should be added to the tables 3, 4, 6. Detailed descriptions should be added in the content.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Some of the references within the paper are written using [ ] while the rest of the references are written using the name(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication (e.g. page 2, line 61, Cherry et al., 2014). Please correct according to the instructions for authors. Please also make the necessary corrections to the Reference list at the end of the paper.
Page 2, lines 70 and 71: «it appears that such studies in other European countries such as Germany are lacking in the literature”. I propose that the authors should try to add some more references from other European countries at this point. These references may not necessarily correspond to TDM measures but also to Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPS) or traffic management measures in general.
Page 4, Section 2. Materials and Methods: A data flow diagram (DFD) adequately presenting the methodology followed in the paper could help the reader to better understand the various steps of the research.
Page 5, line 172: Although the initials “IASS” on page 1 are explained, line 10, please repeat what the acronym IASS means.
Page 8: The first 2 lines of Table 2 must go to the next page (page 9).
The titles of Table 3 (page 10), Table 4 (page 11), Table 5 (page 12) and Table 6 (page 12) have also additional text. Please correct accordingly.
Page 13, Section 4. Discussion: Section 4 contains a large amount of text. I think that the insertion of a Table summarizing the findings which are presented in the specific section is essential.
Page 15, lines 487 to 489: Please explain why the potential skewing of the proportions of responses to some of the questions is considered as a limitation.
Page 15, Section 5.Conclusions: The authors should try to enhance the part of the conclusions which refers to policy implications. They should also to try to see if these policies are proved to be successful in other case studies.
Page 16, line 521: [link to be provided]. Please note that I couldn’t find the link in the supplementary material.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for all improvements in a paper. The only one remark regarding point 3. I suggested to add just short names, not detailed descriptions. Descriptions should be added to the content of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
