Active Commuting: An Opportunity to Fight Both Climate Change and Physical Inactivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The concept paper covers an important gap in the climate change mitigation agenda. Though the concept paper  is well detailed, it does not clearly  identify the policy and academic gap. You also need to ensure coherent flow of ideas.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The concept paper covers an important gap in the climate change mitigation agenda. Though the concept paper is well detailed, it does not clearly identify the policy and academic gap. It can be improved by addressing the following gaps/ concerns

R: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your time in this review process. Substantial revisions were made and are marked yellow in the manuscript.

 

1. The authors should consider minimising repetitions

R: Taking this comment into account, changes have been made and can be checked in the lines 56-57, 131, 133 and 136-137. We rewrote and erased some sentences in order to avoid repetitions.  

 

2. Please provide the rationale for the choice of active transport

R: Regarding this comment, we added information about the decrease in popularity of walking and cycling, and restructured lines 69-76. We also mentioned that changes in transportation sector contributed to the rise of physical inactivity levels (lines 58-59). We consider that, as we mentioned in lines 141-145, this loss of popularity of active commuting over the last years, and the high levels of physical inactivity, provide a good reason for debating possible new strategies to promote active commuting. Additionally, we believe that the potential effects of active commuting on the decrease of CO₂ emissions justify a new look upon this subject. Both issues provide the rationale for the choice of this matter, since it could help to achieve a healthier and more sustainable society, making a great contribution to public health (lines 136-137).

 

3. Provide the missing objectives

R: We consider this point as being extremely pertinent. Indeed, our paper does not follow the traditional structure of a concept paper, since it does not include objectives, methodology and hypothesis. The purpose of our manuscript is to increase awareness on the importance of active commuting, setting the basis for a discussion regarding this matter. In this sense, we decided to change the definition of our paper from “Concept paper” to “Letter to the Editor” (line 1).

 

4. Briefly explain the methodology

R: Same as in point 3.

 

Further please attend to the following issues

5. What are the research questions/ hypothesis?

R: Same as in point 3.

 

6. How does the concept contribute to advancement of knowledge and how will this knowledge be utilised .i.e. publications, climate crisis mitigation etc.

R: Above all, we consider that our manuscript contributes as a starting point to a discussion about an important subject. Our main goal by writing the paper, was to increase awareness on the need to discuss active commuting and its potential to decrease CO₂ emissions and to increase physical activity levels among an increasingly more sedentary society.

 Besides, we added a new section to the manuscript (lines 162-178), where we provide some ideas on how to promote physical activity through active commuting.

 

General comments: Need to ensure logical flow of ideas and delete section 136-140 which seems to be out of context.

R: We consider the reviewer to be right about this point. Therefore, the mentioned section has been deleted as recommended. In addition, we consider that the changes made to meet suggestion number 1 also contributed to a more logical and fluid writing.

Reviewer 2 Report

I’d like to thank the editors that ask me to review this concept paper. With interest, I have read the text, which can be framed as a starting point for the beginning of important discussion about the relationship among health and climate and ecological conditions. However, one point that should be better considered by the authors is the actual contribution of transport to air pollution and how this could change by promoting “active commuting”. First of all, it should be considered that active commuting can be only promoted among a few workers, according to their ability and capacity, the distance between home and work, the possibility of introducing urban health initiatives, and so on.

Yet, the most important point remains the quota of air pollution attributable to private transport, which corresponds to the avoidable part of pollutants emitted. Well, emerging literature is showing that, for instance, in some metropolitan areas the levels of PM (as proxy indicator of carbon emissions) during lockdown period did not mirror the stop of car due to “stay at home” policies. This does not mean that traffic does not contribute to air pollution, but that the role of transport in pollutant levels is low and hardly evaluable. Whiting this context, I have doubt on the publication of this concept paper.

Author Response

I’d like to thank the editors that ask me to review this concept paper. With interest, I have read the text, which can be framed as a starting point for the beginning of important discussion about the relationship among health and climate and ecological conditions. However, one point that should be better considered by the authors is the actual contribution of transport to air pollution and how this could change by promoting “active commuting”.

First of all, it should be considered that active commuting can be only promoted among a few workers, according to their ability and capacity, the distance between home and work, the possibility of introducing urban health initiatives, and so on.

R: Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for your contribution. About your comment, we consider that you are right. We are aware that active commuting cannot be promoted for everyone, since it has several limitations as you mentioned, although not all of them are absolute. For example, although the distance between home and work/school is an obvious barrier to active commuting, people can still be encouraged to park their cars within a 15-minutes walking or cycling (if cities provide a bike sharing system) distance from work/school. For people that use transit services, active commuting programs could be designed in order to encourage them to drop-off a few stations earlier than usual (we included this suggestions in our manuscript, in the recently added section 2.1 – lines 162-178).  We do not see active commuting as a strategy that necessarily needs to be used exclusively. If used in combination with other means of transport, like the examples we gave above, active commuting could still help people meet the WHO recommendations for daily physical activity levels. Presenting active commuting as a solution for everyone would be unrealistic. However, considering the high levels of physical inactivity among developed countries, we strongly believe that changing some people´s commuting choice, according to their ability and capacity, would still be a tremendous win for public health.

 

Yet, the most important point remains the quota of air pollution attributable to private transport, which corresponds to the avoidable part of pollutants emitted. Well, emerging literature is showing that, for instance, in some metropolitan areas the levels of PM (as proxy indicator of carbon emissions) during lockdown period did not mirror the stop of car due to “stay at home” policies.

R: Thank you for your interesting comment, which touches a very pertinent and necessary discussion about the effects of the lockdown.  Regarding the lockdown period, we are aware of the existence of several emerging studies, and we would like you to share the literature you mentioned with us. For example, Mousazadeh et al. [1] reported reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and PM during the lockdown, with the latter varying considerably depending on the country. Of course there can be many attributable causes, with the reduction of mobility being only one of them. On the other hand, Lamprecht et al. [2] found that, surprisingly, the reduction of classic air pollutant emissions during the SARS-CoV-2 in the European lockdown was more significant than that of CO2. In this sense, we recognize that you are right about private transport being a fraction of total pollution attributed to the transport sector, and that active commuting only has the potential to reduce the emissions of part of that fraction. That is the main reason why we mentioned in our manuscript the need for future research to provide a clearer understanding of whether taking up active commuting results in a decrease in overall energy (e.g., fossil fuel) use (lines 156-161). Climate change is complex enough for us to know that active commuting, by itself, could not make a game-changing contribution. Instead, it should be faced as part of a much more complex and vast set of strategies to address the current climate crisis. Thus, considering the urgency to take action on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we still see active commuting as a pertinent strategy to take into account, especially if we consider its multiple health co-benefits.

Also, we redefined our manuscript type as a “Letter to the Editor” (line 1). We would like to ask you to reconsider the pertinence of our manuscript by seeing it, above all,  as a wake-up call towards the need to promote active commuting as a precursor of a healthier and more active lifestyle, that could also have the potential to contribute to the decrease of air pollution.

 

This does not mean that traffic does not contribute to air pollution, but that the role of transport in pollutant levels is low and hardly evaluable. Whiting this context, I have doubt on the publication of this concept paper.

 

References

1. Mousazadeh, M.; Paital, B.; Naghdali, Z.; Mortezania, Z.; Hashemi, M.; Niaragh, E. K.; Aghababaei, M.; Ghorbankhani, M.; Lichtfouse, E.; Sillanpää, M.; Hashim, K. S.; Emamjomeh, M. M. Positive environmental effects of the coronavirus 2020 episode: a review. Env Dev Sustain. 2021; 16(18). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01240-3
2. Lamprecht, C.; Graus, M.; Striednig, M.; Stichaner, M.; Karl, T. Decoupling of urban CO2 and air pollutant emission reductions during the European SARS-CoV-2 lockdown. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021; 21: 3091–3102. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3091-2021

Reviewer 3 Report

1. His article and idea is quite interesting and current, especially as the authors try to highlight the important role that ''Active commuting: an opportunity to fight both climate change and physical inactivity'', has it on health. The population of the world, as the authors say, has become quite sedentary and the means of travel are indispensable in their lives. I think we should be more aware of the importance of physical activity on health and try to become more active because the degree of inactivity is quite high.
2. I think the authors should pass other terms to the keywords because it is not indicated that these words can be found in the title of the article.
3. The authors should also present in the article some WHO strategies on physical inactivity (there is little information here - lines 61-64) and combating it, without linking to climate change.Please fill in this necessary information in the article.
4. Lines 12, 61, 149 - too much space between words, please correct.
5. References - please change where appropriate, see template.
6. I think that the addition of new programs and strategies focused on the degree of inactivity is necessary, the authors present little information on this level.

Author Response

1. This article and idea is quite interesting and current, especially as the authors try to highlight the important role that ''Active commuting: an opportunity to fight both climate change and physical inactivity'', has it on health. The population of the world, as the authors say, has become quite sedentary and the means of travel are indispensable in their lives. I think we should be more aware of the importance of physical activity on health and try to become more active because the degree of inactivity is quite high.

R: Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for comment. Regarding all your helpful suggestions, we made changes to our manuscript. The changes we made are marked yellow.

 

2. I think the authors should pass other terms to the keywords because it is not indicated that these words can be found in the title of the article.

R: Done. The new keywords are:  public health; quality of life; sustainability; environment (line 24).

 

3. The authors should also present in the article some WHO strategies on physical inactivity (there is little information here - lines 61-64) and combating it, without linking to climate change. Please fill in this necessary information in the article.

R: Done. In order to reduce physical inactivity and sedentary behavior, the World Health Organization (WHO) [8], has set 4 main strategic goals: create active societies, aiming a paradigm shift in all of society towards the benefits of regular physical activity; create active environments, by creating supportive spaces and places in cities and communities in which people can engage in regular physical activity; create active people, by outlining the multiple settings in which an increase in programs and opportunities can help people to engage in regular physical activity; create active systems, by outlining the needed investments to strengthen the systems that allow the implementation of actions to increase physical activity (lines 60-68).

 

4. Lines 12, 61, 149 - too much space between words, please correct.

R: Done.

 

5. References - please change where appropriate, see template.

R: All references were revised as recommended (marked yellow in the reference section – lines 190-245).

 

6. I think that the addition of new programs and strategies focused on the degree of inactivity is necessary; the authors present little information on this level.

R: In order to address this suggestion, we added a new section (2.1.) to the manuscript, in which we give a few suggestions to promote physical activity through active commuting (lines 162-178).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is  a great improvement of the first  draft. However check the context of using the word "paradoxically" 

Author Response

This is a great improvement of the first draft. However check the context of using the word "paradoxically"

R: Dear Reviewer, thank for you time and for your suggestion. We agree that, in this context, the word “paradoxically” may not me the most suitable. Considering this, we decided to delete the referred word, simplifying the sentence from “Therefore, paradoxically, the urging actions to fight climate change are, possibly, the greatest public health opportunity over the last century [6]” to “Therefore, the urging actions to fight climate change are, possibly, the greatest public health opportunity over the last century [6]”.  The change has been marked yellow in line 49.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has substantially enough improved to be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

The paper has substantially enough improved to be accepted for publication.

R: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your time and for your contribution. We are pleased to see the importance of our manuscript reconsidered.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made the required changes.

Author Response

The authors made the required changes.

R: Dear Reviewer, my colleagues and I would like to thank you for your time and for your valuable suggestions, which allowed our manuscript to improve significantly.