Transit-Oriented Development: Towards Achieving Sustainable Transport and Urban Development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper sustainability-1692577 “Transit-Oriented Development: towards Achieving Sustainable Transport and Urban Development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia”
Comments
This study focuses on the sustainable transport and urban development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia and concentrates on the transit-oriented development. I think the paper fits well the scope of the journal and addresses an important subject. However, a number of revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication. There are some weak points that have to be strengthened. Below please find more specific comments:
*Abstract: The abstract seems to be adequate. No comments.
*Lines 46-48: There is a lot of unused white space on the second page of the manuscript. Please remove it.
*Since this study directly accounts for the COVID-19 impacts, there should be a more solid discussion regarding this in the introduction section. In particular, the authors should create a solid discussion that focuses on risk perception and COVID-19 along with COVID-19 impacts on society (e.g., restrictions in traveling, lockdowns, reduction in the public transport use, transition to remote operations, closure of retail and entertainment facilities, etc.). This discussion should be supported by the relevant references, including but not limited to the following:
Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Risk Perception during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Theoretical Review. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration 2021, 7(2), pp.35-41.
Implementing Public Health Strategies—The Need for Educational Initiatives: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18(11), p.5888.
The Impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID‐19 cases. Risk Analysis 2021, 41(5), pp.787-800.
The impact of risk perception on social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17(17), p.6256.
An Assessment of Social Distancing Obedience Behavior during the COVID-19 Post-Epidemic Period in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Sustainability 2021, 13(14), p.8091.
Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2021, 72(4), pp.697-702.
Such a discussion would certainly improve the presentation of this manuscript.
*Section 2.1: Please provide a more solid discussion to justify the selection of study area. This would be certainly helpful to the future readers.
*Figure 1 looks somewhat blurry (especially smaller figures at the bottom). It would be good if the resolution of these figures could be improved.
*The manuscript contains quite a lot of figures and tables. Please try to provide a more detailed description of these figures and tables along with the main findings to make sure that the future readers will have a reasonable understanding of the main findings and key insights.
*Section 4 seems to be quite detailed. No comments.
*The conclusions section should expand on limitations of this study and future research needs. I suggest listing the bullet points.
Author Response
Point 1: This study focuses on the sustainable transport and urban development in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia and concentrates on the transit-oriented development. I think the paper fits well the scope of the journal and addresses an important subject. However, a number of revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication. There are some weak points that have to be strengthened. Below please find more specific comments:
*Abstract: The abstract seems to be adequate. No comments.
Response 1: Thank you for the appreciation
Point 2: Lines 46-48: There is a lot of unused white space on the second page of the manuscript. Please remove it.
Response 2: the unused white space had been removed, thank you
Point 3: Since this study directly accounts for the COVID-19 impacts, there should be a more solid discussion regarding this in the introduction section. In particular, the authors should create a solid discussion that focuses on risk perception and COVID-19 along with COVID-19 impacts on society (e.g., restrictions in traveling, lockdowns, reduction in the public transport use, transition to remote operations, closure of retail and entertainment facilities, etc.). This discussion should be supported by the relevant references, including but not limited to the following:
Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Risk Perception during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Theoretical Review. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration 2021, 7(2), pp.35-41
Implementing Public Health Strategies—The Need for Educational Initiatives: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18(11), p.5888.
The Impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID‐19 cases. Risk Analysis 2021, 41(5), pp.787-800.
The impact of risk perception on social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17(17), p.6256.
An Assessment of Social Distancing Obedience Behavior during the COVID-19 Post-Epidemic Period in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Sustainability 2021, 13(14), p.8091.
Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2021, 72(4), pp.697-702. [6]
Such a discussion would certainly improve the presentation of this manuscript.
Response 3: thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have added two paragraphs within the Introduction (lines 104-130) to discuss issues relating to the Covid-19 impact on changes in people’s mobility and the role of risk perception on people’s willlingness to support government’s Covid-19-related meassures. Moreover, we also added a paragraph within the discussion section of 4.3 (lines 616-625) to discuss relevant key findings with regard to the Covid-19 pandemic and our recommendation for future research. We included the recommended references to support these discussions (new reference numbers: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33).
Point 4: Section 2.1: Please provide a more solid discussion to justify the selection of study area. This would be certainly helpful to the future readers.
Response 4: thank you, we added sufficient justifications for the selection of the studied TOD areas, in lines 223-234.
Point 5: Figure 1 looks somewhat blurry (especially smaller figures at the bottom). It would be good if the resolution of these figures could be improved.
Response 5: thank you, Figure 1 was replaced with a higher resolution map.
Point 6: The manuscript contains quite a lot of figures and tables. Please try to provide a more detailed description of these figures and tables along with the main findings to make sure that the future readers will have a reasonable understanding of the main findings and key insights
Response 6: thank you, a more detailed description of some figures and tables were added. Moreover, we have added ‘figure or table numbers’ that correspond to the main findings throughout the Results section.
Point 7: Section 4 seems to be quite detailed. No comments.
Response 7: Thank you for the appreciation
Point 8: The conclusions section should expand on limitations of this study and future research needs. I suggest listing the bullet points.
Response 8: thank you, we added the limitations of the study and future research needs written in bullet points as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written, clear, and logically constructed. The results are interesting and useful to compare with other studies.
I like both maps (Figures 1 and 2). They are clear and fully informative.
I request only two explanations (wider description).
Formula (1) should be better described and commented on. In my opinion, a formula should define some equations. Something (some parameter, quantity) should be defined with the use of “=”. In the presented form formula (1) is not understandable.
Please, characterize in more detail the population (number of employees) in all (8) considered TOD areas. This will allow for evaluating the number of commuters considered in the survey (= 400 people) and states if this number is statistically significant. Usually, the number of surveyed people should reach circa 1% of the population.
I indicate the small technical mistakes yet: Tables 3 and 7 (especially this second one) shouldn’t be divided into two pages.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper is well written, clear, and logically constructed. The results are interesting and useful to compare with other studies.
Response 1: Thank you for the appreciation
Point 2: I like both maps (Figures 1 and 2). They are clear and fully informative.
Response 2: Thank you for the appreciation. We updated figure 1 with a higher resolution map to add greater clarity.
Point 3: I request only two explanations (wider description). Formula (1) should be better described and commented on. In my opinion, a formula should define some equations. Something (some parameter, quantity) should be defined with the use of “=”. In the presented form formula (1) is not understandable.
Response 3: Thank you, we have amended the formula and added more descriptions as suggested. See lines 241-252.
Point 4: Please, characterize in more detail the population (number of employees) in all (8) considered TOD areas. This will allow for evaluating the number of commuters considered in the survey (= 400 people) and states if this number is statistically significant. Usually, the number of surveyed people should reach circa 1% of the population.
Response 4: thank you, we added more explanations on the population (number of employees) in all sampled TOD areas, and the percentage of the surveyed people vis a vis the former, as well as the criteria for selecting the respondents (lines 265-269).
Point 5: I indicate the small technical mistakes yet: Tables 3 and 7 (especially this second one) shouldn’t be divided into two pages.
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion; we modified table 3 and re-arranged the running text before and after Table table 7 to locate each table in one page.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors took seriously my previous comments and made the required revisions in the manuscript. The quality and presentation of the manuscript have been improved. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.
