Comparing Inequality in Future Urban Transport Modes by Doughnut Economy Concept
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presented for review is of an overview and cognitive nature, organizing important, current issues related to inequalities in access to various modes of transport. I assess positively the selection of the research problem, its topicality, and its importance. The title was formulated in such a way that it unequivocally points to the analyzed problem. I have some objections to the content of the abstract. I find it too synthetic. A few sentences related to the methodology of work and the main results should be added so that the content of the abstract encourages you to read the article. The keywords are correct.
The structure of the article seems to be correct, although the introduction lacks a clear emphasis on the research gap and the justification for the choice of the method.
The article requires careful editorial correction. There are spelling, syntax and editorial errors. The sources need to be reviewed again because some of them are incorrectly spelled or incorrectly cited. The access date is missing in some sources, e.g. position 186.
The article ends with a chapter entitled Discussions and Recommendations. Due to the nature of the article (review and ordering), it is understandable, but it seems that the summary should emphasize what the article contributed to scientific knowledge - this was missing in the last part of the article. I do not mean conclusions, but rather an emphasis on what new has been shown in relation to previously published articles.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
sustainability-1961769 is a highly interesting paper that I like much, and for which I do not have more than a couple of recommendations before recommending acceptance:
i) Amongst the quality factors that make transit customers happy (lines 302-303), also travel time, travel winding and cost should be added. Please give a glance at Kirchhoff, P. (2002). Städtische Verkehrsplanung, Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany; Nocera S. (2010). An Operational Approach for Quality Evaluation in Public Transport Services. Ingegneria Ferroviaria 65-4: 363-383; Nocera, S. (2011). The key role of quality assessment in public transport policy. Traffic Engineering & Control 52-9: 394-398;
ii) I would add some lines somewhere explaining what the relationship between Doughnut Economy and transport impacts may be – and what the consequences in terms of external costs may be;
iii) It can be the case of at list naming some possible key case studies in this research, so that the entire line of reasoning can be more concrete.
All in all, this is however a paper deserving a great deal of attention from this journal. I am ready to inspect a new version of this paper if necessary
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind and helpful remarks. We have further improved our article following the advice of the Academic Editor. Please find in the attachment our response and see the changes in the Article.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
