Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the quality of the article is good on average, although in some cases it would be advisable to have greater clarity. For example, you should enable the reader to at least partially reconstruct the path you have taken to arrive at your results, and I am referring exactly to the numerical calculation of scores. For example, I was unable to find the variable S in the formula Ini = S * (If + Ds + Di) in the presented tables (I put a note in the text). For the rest I admit that some of my comments may be a bit trivial, but in the end they are all oriented to require just a little more clarity. I attach a PDF file with a copy of your article and my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

 

Point 1: Remove comma

 

Response 1: The comma was removed.

 

Point 2: Maybe I did not understand, but there are many traffic planning models that are able to do this. Which level of interaction do you intend to consider in this case?

 

Response 2: The text was modified to include a better explanation about the level of interaction of sharing transportation among passengers and goods. The proposal model includes several initiatives to sharing transport infrastructure for people and goods at the same time. For example, to use daily travels of citizens to deliver goods in neighbourhood or to use free space in public transport out of rush hour to transport goods.

 

Point 3: I think that the readability of this chart can improved by simply inserting separators or borders around the cells. For example, I suggest to separe the first block of initiatives coming from the "Incentives to the use of UPT" policy  to the remaining block of initiatives coming from the Incentives to the "Use of Active Modes of Transport" policy.

 

Response 3: The chart was modified to improve the readability

 

Point 4: Same as Chart 1

 

Response 4: The chart was modified to improve the readability

 

Point 5: Same as Chart 1 and Chart 2. In this case we start from "Clean Transport and Environmental Awareness" policy only, therefore the table is more readable per se. But I think that using borders can improve readability anyway.

 

Response 5: The chart was modified to improve the readability

 

Point 6: This part and the following text is understandable only for those that are familiar with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. I would suggest to modify the sentence in some way such as "Once the indicators were selected, the Hierarchical Structure of the policies and initiatives was elaborated following the AHP approach", just to invite the reader to refer to additional documentation (such as reference [35]) if she/he wants to better understand.

 

Response 6: The text was modified as suggested. More papers were included on lines 28 to 49 as part of literature. The reader can explore them to better understand de AHP approach.

 

Point 7: Please, clarify this sentence. It appears to be the title of a paragraph. Re-format it accordingly.

 

Response 7: The sentence was really a title and it was re-formatted.

 

Point 8: Please, highlight in some way the S factor inside the previous tables. It is difficult to follow the application of the formula if the variables are not clearly presented. Similarly, you can add the name of the variables to the headings of the previous table, such as "Impact factor (If)", just as a sample

 

Response 8: The following sentence was added to the text to clarify why the Stage of Implementation isn´t at the previous table. Unlike the rest of partial weights, the Stage of Implementation is not calculated. The Stage of Implementation of each initiative is given by data collection in the city where the index will be applied.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I congratulate the authors for this contribution. The article is interesting as a whole and has a practical case of application. Some concerns and doubts arise, especially in the structure of the article or points that are a bit confusing to follow. If the authors could make the proposed changes, it would help better understand potential readers in the future.

 

Abstract:

1. The abstract should provide more depth on the problem to be solved and increase the novelty of this research.

 

Introduction

1. The real problem that the article is trying to solve cannot be appreciated. There could be a paragraph detailing more clearly the issue in a more specific way.

 

2. It is recommended that there is a content of the article or what will be discussed in the paper at the end of the introduction part. And mention the scientific contribution or the problem to be solved.

 

3. On lines 28 to 49. I recommend that the following articles be included as part of the literature.

• Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10083. doi: 10.3390/su122310083
• An Integrated Approach of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Analyzing the Park-and-Ride Facility Location Problem. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1225. doi: 10.3390/sym12081225
• An Integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Evaluating Park-and-Ride Facility Location Issue: A Case Study for Cuenca City in Ecuador. Sustainability2021, 13, 7461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137461

 

2. Materials and Methods

1. It is a bit confusing to understand the structure of the article, mainly because the novelty, the literature part, and the method are explained in the same section. Is it possible to separate this into different sections for better understanding?

2. Line 73 to 77. The authors could be more specific about the ideas of sustainability and concepts, I recommend adding a few examples.
3. The 78-84 line. The authors should highlight this gap in the research and be more specific in previous paragraphs about which indicators have been studied and those that have not.
4. Line 85. This is a generalized statement,” Current urban transport systems do not contribute to the social and environmental sustainability of cities,” but I recommend being more specific. For example, in which regions of the world are these cases occurring?
5. Item 2.3 should be separated from item 2 for better understanding. Is it possible for the authors to separate this point?

 

 

3. Results

1. Item 3 presents the results again. This point may include a section called "case study," and the city of Sao Paolo is incorporated. And then have a sub-item called results of the case study.

2. Similarly, the results and discussion part cannot be differentiated, and I suggest a division in this section.

 

4. Conclusions. 

1. The authors should include possible research that could be conducted in the future or what other factors would be essential to analyze in other cities

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Abstract:

 

Point1: The abstract should provide more depth on the problem to be solved and increase the novelty of this research.

 

Response 1: The text has been modified to add the information.

 

Introduction

 

Point 2: The real problem that the article is trying to solve cannot be appreciated. There could be a paragraph detailing more clearly the issue in a more specific way.

 

Response 2: A new paragraph has been written to clarify de problem that the article is trying to solve, on line 60.

 

Point 3: It is recommended that there is a content of the article or what will be discussed in the paper at the end of the introduction part. And mention the scientific contribution or the problem to be solved.

 

Response 3: A new paragraph has been written to complement the information, on line 66.

 

Point 4: On lines 28 to 49. I recommend that the following articles be included as part of the literature.

 

Using Best Worst Method for Sustainable Park and Ride Facility Location. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10083. doi: 10.3390/su122310083

 

An Integrated Approach of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Analyzing the Park-and-Ride Facility Location Problem. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1225. doi: 10.3390/sym12081225

 

An Integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Evaluating Park-and-Ride Facility Location Issue: A Case Study for Cuenca City in Ecuador. Sustainability2021, 13, 7461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137461

 

Response 4: The recommend articles have been included on the text, but not between the suggested lines, because the restructuration of the paper moved the early content to other lines.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Point 5: It is a bit confusing to understand the structure of the article, mainly because the novelty, the literature part, and the method are explained in the same section. Is it possible to separate this into different sections for better understanding?

 

Response 5: The content has been restructured, including new sections as suggested. The moved text was highlight in blue.

 

Point 6: Line 73 to 77. The authors could be more specific about the ideas of sustainability and concepts, I recommend adding a few examples.

 

Response 6: A definition of sustainability and their dimensions have been added to the text on line 148.

 

Point 7: The 78-84 line. The authors should highlight this gap in the research and be more specific in previous paragraphs about which indicators have been studied and those that have not.

 

Response 7: A new paragraph has been added to better explain the subject, on line 155.

 

Point 8: Line 85. This is a generalized statement,” Current urban transport systems do not contribute to the social and environmental sustainability of cities,” but I recommend being more specific. For example, in which regions of the world are these cases occurring?.

 

Response 8: The text has been modified to better explain de cited sentence, on line 122.

 

Point 9: Item 2.3 should be separated from item 2 for better understanding. Is it possible for the authors to separate this point?

 

Response 9: The section has been separated and the text reallocated. The moved parts are highlight in blue.

 

Results

 

Point 10: Item 3 presents the results again. This point may include a section called "case study," and the city of Sao Paolo is incorporated. And then have a sub-item called results of the case study.

 

Response 10: The text and the section have been altered as suggested.

 

Point 11: Similarly, the results and discussion part cannot be differentiated, and I suggest a division in this section.

 

Response 11: The division of this section has been altered as suggested.

 

Conclusions

 

Point 12: The authors should include possible research that could be conducted in the future or what other factors would be essential to analyze in other cities.

 

Response 12: A new text has been included at the end of conclusion section, on line 506.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf