A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for sending your paper to journal Sustainability.
I find your paper interesting but there is some place for improvements of your paper:
1. You can add one chapter called "literature review" - How is the problem solved by other authors?
2. Discussions and conclusions are too general. In view of the title of the thesis, I expected a more specific proposal of the methodology and especially a more specific solution for the application of the methodology.
3. Short description and characteristics of FRETURB and WINER models, at least the abbreviation should be explained when introduced for the first time.
Author Response
Please find answers in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction and general discussion is too long without offering anything to the reader, especially in terms of research problem. On the other hand important experimental details and explanations are missing. The revised version should focus on what the author actually did and remove strong statements such as that a methodology was developed and results (by modelling) will be presented.
The abstract contains: “…a method designed to support local authorities as they select their urban freight transport models.” In what sense, what purpose of the planning to be done?
In line 38 you say “mobility paradigm”, which is? Maybe, the “accessibility paradigm” is better. Explain about the differences and the view point in freight transport models. The planning process start with the “problem identification”, but this is not shown in Figure 1. It is necessary to justify the choice of Freturb, Wiver and Gdynia´s urban transport model. The multilevel model in Gdynia was not development for urban freight transport. Freturb and Wiver do not consider displacement of persons. This is a problem for urban transport planning. How to integrate? Method requires criteria, what selection criteria, and what reason, were adopted? What is the effect of your method for transport planning? What level of planning does it fit into? The conclusion must be in line with the results and purpose of the article. It should rewrite.
Author Response
Please find answers in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your new version of paper.
Regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviever,
Thank you for valuable comments and an opportunity to upgrade my paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The suggested changes were met. The article has had substantial improvement. However, further detail in the decision-making method was important, highlighting the reasons for choosing the selection criteria, which helped to point out the performance of each of the models selected for the study. I believe that the work will add contribution to the scientific community.
Author Response
Thank you for additional comments. A background for criteria selection was not explained adequately indeed. I introduced a new paragraph (#188 - 215) which complements changes made previously. Its intention was to provide a clear link between criteria selection and the SUMP's planning cycle requirements.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is in an adequate stage, has incorporated the suggestions presented and is bringing interesting contributions to the state of the art.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for comments and possibility to improve the paper.
