Influences on Greenways Usage for Active Transportation: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Typos and minor spelling erros should be made by authors.

Better presentation between results, figures and text is needed.

Future research perspectives should be demonstrated to stakeholders.

Similarity found in text should be reduced based on next  web link

 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/2/40 INTERNET 5%

Typos and minor spelling erros should be made by authors.

Better presentation between results, figures and text is needed.

Future research perspectives should be demonstrated to stakeholders.

Similarity found in text should be reduced based on next  web link

 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/2/40 INTERNET 5%

Author Response

General comment: Please note tracked changes are activated in the Word document to indicate where edits have been made. Please turn on “No Markup” in Word to see the final and clean layout of the paper. A PDF is also provided so that you see the final format of the paper.

Typos and minor spelling erros should be made by authors.

Response: All typos and minor spelling errors were addressed. Please enable “all markup” to view the changes (all tracked to facilitate the checking process).

Better presentation between results, figures and text is needed.

Response: The presentation of several results, figures, tables, and text was revised based on the MDPI template. Most notably, all tables were reformatted. Figure and tables’ referencing within text was revised (the layout of the paper was changed in response to other reviewers’ feedback). Figure 1 was replaced with a higher quality version. Figure 2 (in original manuscript) was deleted because the term greenway is used for different contexts. Furthermore, Figure 2’s indication of continued interest in the greenway literature, while true, the graph represents the number of times the term “greenway” was mentioned in journal article publications from 1990 until today. As such, the graph could be inaccurate. For a more detailed view of changes regarding the paper’s presentation, please enable the tracking to show where edits have been made. If there is anything else unclear in the presentation of results, tables, figures, or text, could you please specify it? It would be my pleasure to clarify it.

Future research perspectives should be demonstrated to stakeholders.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I added multiple sentences to reflect your point (see Subsection 5.1, paragraph lines 841-851).  

Similarity found in text should be reduced based on next web link https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/2/40 INTERNET 5%

Response: Even though the referenced article and ours share a similar topic, the introduction, goals, methods, analysis, results, and discussion are different. In addition, we have cited Horte & Eisenman’s (2020) systematic review at multiple locations (in the revised manuscript, please see Table 1, lines 163-164, 198-199, and 770-771). To the best of our knowledge, an international empirical evidence base of greenways usage for active transportation has not yet been established. Please note that the discussion was greatly reduced (Please see Section 5 in the revised manuscript). We believe it is much more concise.

Lastly, the appendix and references alone are 8654 words, representing 40.6% of the paper’s word count (12 and a half pages long). Adding tables that list, categorize, and reference the included articles was part of the systematic review process, contributing to clarity and transparency of results. The tables are also valuable contributions because they clarify the state of existing literature and facilitate access to them. With that in mind, we hope the revised manuscript is satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper Influences on greenways usage for active transportation has got potential and show important issus. The weak point is, that now is "too big chaos" - it is too much tables and informations, what person who read is not sure what is the most important here. So the result is that Yours pepar is above 30 pages - so You could divide it into two papers. The conclusion is, that You should to write in shorter version as scientific paper, not as a book.

 

The quality of language is generally good. Sometimes is small editor mistakes.

Author Response

General comment: Please note that since tracking of changes is activated in the Word document, the final formatting can be viewed in “No Markup” in Word. A PDF is also provided so that you see the final format of the paper.

The paper Influences on greenways usage for active transportation has got potential and show important issus. The weak point is, that now is “too big chaos” - it is too much tables and informations, what person who read is not sure what is the most important here. So the result is that Yours pepar is above 30 pages - so You could divide it into two papers. The conclusion is, that You should to write in shorter version as scientific paper, not as a book.

Response: Thank you very much for your feedback. The appendix and references alone are 8654 words, which represent 40.6% of the paper’s word count (12 and a half pages long). Adding tables that list, categorize, and reference the included articles was part of the systematic review process, which contributes to clarity and transparency of results. The tables are also valuable contributions because they clarify the state of existing literature and facilitate access to them. For these reasons, we recommend keeping them.

We also would like to point out that the discussion section was greatly reduced. We believe it is much more concise. With that in mind, we hope the revised manuscript is satisfactory.

The quality of language is generally good. Sometimes is small editor mistakes.

Response: All typos and minor spelling errors were addressed. Please enable “all markup” to view the changes (all tracked to facilitate the checking process). In addition, the presentation of several results, figures, tables, and text was revised based on the MDPI template.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is the result of a consultation and an impressive work of the literature that had as its subject the green ways. The introduction of this study is extensive and quite enlightening.

Those references to greenways, which are communication routes reserved exclusively for non-motorized travel, developed in an integrated manner that improves both the environment and the quality of life in the surrounding area, were very well mentioned.

There is, however, a very detailed description in the case of discussions. The whole study brings interesting information, but it could be a better concentration of the information, in a compact structure.

The need to be understood has determined an expansion and perhaps a dilution of information.

As a recommendation, there would be a remediation of the discussions - a systematization of the content.

Author Response

It is the result of a consultation and an impressive work of the literature that had as its subject the green ways. The introduction of this study is extensive and quite enlightening.

Response: Thank you very much.

Those references to greenways, which are communication routes reserved exclusively for non-motorized travel, developed in an integrated manner that improves both the environment and the quality of life in the surrounding area, were very well mentioned.

Response: Thank you very much.

There is, however, a very detailed description in the case of discussions. The whole study brings interesting information, but it could be a better concentration of the information, in a compact structure.

Response: As explained in the submitted paper, factors influencing one’s decision to walk or cycle via greenways are multi-dimensional. One of the added values of this paper is the integration of various concepts to enhance the understanding of where and when greenways influence one’s decision to travel actively for commuting purposes. We also would like to point out that the discussion section was greatly reduced. We believe it is much more concise. We hope the revised manuscript is satisfactory.

General, but related note: the appendix and references alone are 8654 words, which represent 40.6% of the paper’s word count (12 and a half pages long). Adding tables that list, categorize, and reference the included articles was part of the systematic review process, contributing to clarity and transparency of results. The tables are also valuable contributions because they clarify the state of existing literature and facilitate access to them. For these reasons, we recommend keeping them.

The need to be understood has determined an expansion and perhaps a dilution of information.

Response: Thank you very much.

As a recommendation, there would be a remediation of the discussions - a systematization of the content.

Response: The discussion was revised via several steps. The revised version does not repeat the stated conclusions in previous paragraphs. Furthermore, it narrows the gap between the topic sentence and the conclusion (maintain focus). Such a step was achieved by reducing the number of points discussed per paragraph and deleting what has been discussed by existing literature, specifically, the discussion of greenways’ typology. Lastly, we combined paragraphs discussing the same topic, which helped reduce the word count. Specifically, content related to future study directions was reduced to focus on the most important ones. Given these changes, we believe the discussion section is much more concise. Please enable “all markup” to view the changes (all tracked to facilitate the checking process).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Introduction 

(29-31) 'This article revises and significantly extends the work published in the proceedings of the 1st Conference on Future Challenges in Sustainable Urban Planning & Territorial Management [1].'  - What are the differences between the already published text and this revised one. - What is new in this text? Maybe shortly explain it in a footnote.

87-96 - are these research questions for the general purpose of the article (97-98)? If so, please structure the text of the article so that the answers to them are indicated in the relevant sections.  

(90-91) "Why are not ATCs 90 a distinct greenway typology of Fabos (1995) [53] and Little (1990) [18] rather than an added value to their specified types?" - an early explanation of what these typologies are about and why they are important in the context of this article would have been useful.

(100-103) "Zawawi et al. (2022a) stated, "Careful, contextualized consideration of those factors can inform the planning and design of greenways to maximize their use, unlock their use potential, enhance their users' experience, and develop their management and operational strategies." [1] (p. 3)."  - what does this sentence add to the text? 

For the authors to consider. A lot of information is provided in the Intro Section, but apart from a detailed listing of greenways definitions, the content of this section is, in my opinion, chaotic - the authors want to outline as many topics as possible, but without a solid theoretical basis. I suggest adding a theoretical background section and there organize the state of the art on greenways, typologies, research approaches, etc.   

3. Results

I suggest dividing the first part (lines 247-366) into subsections (e.g., geographic coverage, ways of using greeways, methods used, main variable categories, etc.) and assigning appropriate graphical material to them.  

In turn, dedicate the next section (maybe No. 4) only to a description of the influences of the use of greeways (current 3.1, 3.2, .3.3., 3.4 and 3.5), which follows from the topic of the article. This part of the text (line 367-722) is very detailed and comprehensive.  Summary (3.6), in my opinion, should be part of the conclusions.

I suggest that the authors consider whether to rearrange the layout of text.

Author Response

(29-31) ‘This article revises and significantly extends the work published in the proceedings of the 1st Conference on Future Challenges in Sustainable Urban Planning & Territorial Management [1].’ - What are the differences between the already published text and this revised one. - What is new in this text? Maybe shortly explain it in a footnote.

Response: The publication for the 1st Conference on Future Challenges in Sustainable Urban Planning & Territorial Management was an extended abstract (four pages long including the references). The link for the published extended abstract is below. As for differences between the two versions, please see Section 2.1, lines 137-152 in the revised manuscript or read the paragraph below (copied from the manuscript):

“Compared to Zawawi et al. (2022) [1], only journal articles were considered since they typically comprise full methodological details and results that permit a fair assessment of study bias, as required in the PRISMA 2020 checklist [61]. In addition, unlike the previous study [1], the presented systematic review included articles (in its first phase) that examined the economic, social, ecological, health, and economic impact of greenway usage. Such a wide scope offers the opportunity to comprehensively reflect on the greenway usage literature. The last difference between the current and the previous systematic review [1] is the inclusion of articles that primarily collected data from secondary sources. One of the lessons learned from the previous attempt is that numerous journal articles in the greenway usage literature relied on crowdsource data, automated counters (data from secondary sources), and self-tracking applications such as Codoon, Strava, MapMyFitness, and more. Despite the advantages of primary source data, they are unfeasible in many cases in such a field. Additionally, the use of these technological advancements broadens research possibilities and could enhance scientific objectivity. Thus, the systematic review was repeated, yielding different results compared to the first attempt.” (Revised Manuscript, lines 137-152).

 

Link: https://repositorio.upct.es/handle/10317/10365?locale-attribute=en

 

87-96 - are these research questions for the general purpose of the article (97-98)? If so, please structure the text of the article so that the answers to them are indicated in the relevant sections. 

Response: References to answers via the indication of specific sections were added to all research questions and goals.  

(90-91) “Why are not ATCs 90 a distinct greenway typology of Fabos (1995) [53] and Little (1990) [18] rather than an added value to their specified types?” - an early explanation of what these typologies are about and why they are important in the context of this article would have been useful.

Response: Fabos’s (1995) and Little’s (1990) categorization of greenways is widely recognized and referenced in the greenway usage literature. Fabos (1995) categorized them by their ecological, recreational, and historical heritage and cultural significance. Little (1990) had a similar categorization, which was as follows: greenways along waterbodies (e.g., urban riverside), recreational, ecological, scenic, historical, and comprehensive greenway system. Both had transportation/commuting as part of recreational and cultural greenways. Horte & Eisenman (2020) were among several scholars to identify active travel corridors (ATCs) as a distinct urban greenway type. In their paper, they provided justifications for their addition as an urban greenway type. The submitted paper builds on that discourse by flagging the issue of identifying an urban greenway, especially ATCs. The overlap between other design approaches, such as complete streets, may prevent a clear exchange of ideas and evidence-based research. Therefore, a definition of ATCs or transportation-led greenways was suggested in the discussion.

With that in mind, I realize that the placement of the quoted question in the introduction may be misinterpreted. The issue of what defines an urban greenway was one of the methodological concerns that resulted from the systematic review. Therefore, it is not a question that had an influence on the structure and examination of the paper. For these reasons, we have removed that question. Thank you very much for highlighting this issue.

(100-103) “Zawawi et al. (2022a) stated, “Careful, contextualized consideration of those factors can inform the planning and design of greenways to maximize their use, unlock their use potential, enhance their users’ experience, and develop their management and operational strategies.” [1] (p. 3).” - what does this sentence add to the text?

Response: It specifies the importance of this research. The quote was deleted. Several paragraphs in the introduction were revised.

For the authors to consider. A lot of information is provided in the Intro Section, but apart from a detailed listing of greenways definitions, the content of this section is, in my opinion, chaotic - the authors want to outline as many topics as possible, but without a solid theoretical basis. I suggest adding a theoretical background section and there organize the state of the art on greenways, typologies, research approaches, etc.  

Response: A new Subsection (1.1) was added to explain the theoretical framework of this research (please see Section 1, lines 100-114). Doing so involved revising a few paragraphs in the introduction. The theoretical framework guided the systematic review to enhance the understanding of where and when greenways influence one's decision to travel actively for commuting purposes. Specifically, in addition to the systematic review results, behavioral change theories and models helped form connections between various factors and influenced the proposed conceptual framework (see Subsection 5.1). They also facilitated the identification of unexamined research areas that may inform the planning and management of greenways, including as ATCs. These behavioral change theories can be understood within a larger theoretical framework of urban social-ecological-technological systems (SETS), whereby urban form and function are the product of intersecting natural, human, and technological phenomena.

The Introduction Section contextualized the study, justified its importance, stated the research purpose and questions and their significance, cited key publications, defined key terms, and highlighted the main conclusions. Achieving these objectives (MDPI template directions) required an extensive literature review related to these concepts. We hope that these explanations clarify the introduction section.  

3. Results

I suggest dividing the first part (lines 247-366) into subsections (e.g., geographic coverage, ways of using greeways, methods used, main variable categories, etc.) and assigning appropriate graphical material to them. 

Response: The paper’s layout was modified as suggested. Thank you very much for your recommendation.

In turn, dedicate the next section (maybe No. 4) only to a description of the influences of the use of greeways (current 3.1, 3.2, .3.3., 3.4 and 3.5), which follows from the topic of the article. This part of the text (line 367-722) is very detailed and comprehensive. Summary (3.6), in my opinion, should be part of the conclusions.

I suggest that the authors consider whether to rearrange the layout of text.

Response: The paper’s layout was modified as suggested. Thank you very much for your recommendation. As for the summary, we believe its current location is important because the review in Subsections 4.1 – 4.5 was very detailed. Its current location is a typical transition that facilitates comprehension of the previous subsections (4.1-4.5). In addition, the presented conclusion does not repeat what is mentioned in that summary. Adding the summary to the conclusion would increase its length considerably. Therefore, I hope these points justify the placement of the summary section in its current location. Your understanding is much appreciated.

General comment: the appendix and references alone are 8654 words, which represent 40.6% of the paper’s word count (12 and a half pages long). Adding tables that list, categorize, and reference the included articles was part of the systematic review process, which contributes to clarity and transparency of results. The tables are also valuable contributions because they clarify the state of existing literature and facilitate access to them. With that in mind, we hope the revised manuscript is satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors should check typos.

Better presentation should exist between figures, text and text.

Update  is needed for some references.

Similarity found should be reduced.

Authors should check typos. 

Author Response

General note: Completing the PRISMA checklist involved several additions/modifications to the paper. Primarily, change of study title, the addition of certainty of evidence assessment, and statements clarifying data items, synthesis methods, registration, and protocols. Please enable “track changes” in Word to review those modifications. In addition, the risk of bias assessment, specifically, items that had N/A scores under the Selection bias category, were revised. Specifically, external validity for pedestrian and bicycle counts considered duration (continuous or short-durations), temporal variety (i.e., different seasons, day of the week, and time of the day), location (i.e., different geographic parts of a region, land uses, and socioeconomic characteristics of a community), and technology (automated or manual) (Nordback et al., 2016). These factors were added in Subsection 2.4, lines 284 to 289.

Authors should check typos.

Response: All typos were checked. Please note that I have used a United States language for the spelling of all words. Nonetheless, if there are any remaining typos, I would much appreciate it if you could specify the line number and the incorrectly spelled words. It would be my pleasure to fix it.

Better presentation should exist between figures, text and text.

Response: Line spacing between figures, tables, and text was fixed. In addition, Figure 5 (from the submitted second draft) was revised to enhance the communication of results. Primarily, only items that influenced greenways usage for active transportation were included. Items related to, for instance, physical activity were omitted. As such, it reduced the number of items included in Figure 5. Additionally, Figure 5 was divided into two parts (Figures 5 and 6) to facilitate arranging the paper’s layout.

Update  is needed for some references.

Response: References 10, 95, 99, 101, and 123 were revised (submitted first revision). Please note that this revision changed the number order of those references. Thank you very much for flagging the need to update the references.

Similarity found should be reduced.

Response: Table 3 in the original thesis was deleted because its results are part of Table A1 in Appendix A. Thus, minor modifications to Table A1 were made. Specifically, items in bold text are articles that active transportation as a main part of their study (n=27). As a result, the paper’s layout was changed, and all table references were changed as well. Aside from those changes, we believe that none of the paper’s content is repetitive or similar to any other articles.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

It was reaally good that You add some modification of paper, but results are still long. Maybe it will be add some tables to appendix.

Please add also literature, which is new and important (in literature):

DOI:10.3390/su15097568

DOI:10.3390/su14052973

 

Language is good.

Author Response

General note: Completing the PRISMA checklist involved several additions/modifications to the paper. Primarily, change of study title, the addition of certainty of evidence assessment, and statements clarifying data items, synthesis methods, registration, and protocols. Please enable “track changes” in Word to review those modifications. In addition, the risk of bias assessment, specifically, items that had N/A scores under the Selection bias category, were revised. Specifically, external validity for pedestrian and bicycle counts considered duration (continuous or short-durations), temporal variety (i.e., different seasons, day of the week, and time of the day), location (i.e., different geographic parts of a region, land uses, and socioeconomic characteristics of a community), and technology (automated or manual) (Nordback et al., 2016). These factors were added in Subsection 2.4, lines 284 to 289.

Dear Authors,

It was reaally good that You add some modification of paper, but results are still long. Maybe it will be add some tables to Appendix.

Response: Thank you very much. Table 3 in the original thesis was deleted because its results are part of Table A1 in Appendix A. Minor modifications to Table A1 were made. Specifically, items in bold text are articles that had active transportation as a main part of their study (n=27). As a result, the paper’s layout and all table references were changed. Overall, without the Appendix and references, the paper is 25 pages long.

Please add also literature, which is new and important (in literature):

DOI:10.3390/su15097568

DOI:10.3390/su14052973

Response: Thank you very much for your recommendations. We have reviewed the suggested articles and believe that they are not directly related to the systematic review’s topic. Therefore, they were not added to the revised manuscript.  

Language is good.

Response: Thank you very much.