Choosing the Bicycle as a Mode of Transportation, the Influence of Infrastructure Perception, Travel Satisfaction and Pro-Environmental Attitude, the Case of Milan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors!
The relevance of the study does not wash out doubts, since the choice of a bicycle is a significant risk factor. However, there are enough methods and algorithms for the formation of a sustainable urban transport system that require a comparative analysis and systematization for the conditions of interaction between various types of urban transport.
I recommend reflecting the structure of the article in the introduction.
The article describes the problem in sufficient detail, while not fully suggesting ways to solve it. I recommend systematizing existing factors, presenting a multifactorial framework. Scientific novelty needs improvement.
I recommend that the results be presented in tabular form, indicating factors and indicators.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting. It is clear that the authors have a good research workshop, although the manuscript itself requires refinement, I give it a chance due to some high scientific values. If the article is corrected, I will recommend it for publication. At this stage, several important points are missing for a full description of the study.
The title of the manuscript is apt and the abstract comprehensive. Keywords are well thought out.
The literature review in the introduction is interesting, but in my opinion, there is no reference to sustainable transport. The very title of the journal obliges me to do so. One of the paradigms of sustainable transport is the shift paradigm - a shift from car transport to rail or inland waterway transport, or from individual motorized transport to public or e-mobility (bicycles, hiking, scooter rides, etc.). The second is the decoupling paradigm. MaaS is also worth mentioning.
Maybe inspiration will be:
1. Kłos-Adamkiewicz, Z.; Szaruga, E.; Gozdek, A.; Kogut-Jaworska, M. Links between the Energy Intensity of Public Urban Transport, Regional Economic Growth and Urbanisation: The Case of Poland. Energies 2023, 16, 3799. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093799
2. Suchanek, M.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A. Environmental Aspects of Generation Y’s Sustainable Mobility. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113204
3. Bieliński, T.; Ważna, A. Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640
4. Szaruga, E.; Załoga, E. Machine Learning in Exploration the Decoupling Paradigm in Transport. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 207, 3904–3914.
5. Bieliński, T.; Dopierała, Ł.; Tarkowski, M.; Ważna, A. Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System. Energies 2020, 13, 6240. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236240
The introduction describes the research problem with references to the literature. Please also write in it the purpose of the article (about sustainable transport) and 2-3 research questions or 1 research hypothesis. There was also no short description of the structure of the article and a description of what the authors bring (how they will fill the cognitive gap).
To section 2 (The present study), please add your own framework that you have adapted with your modifications.
There are hypotheses in the methods and the purpose of the article (but they should be here as a repetition) please remove references to literature from this place (they can be used elsewhere).
Please describe the method by which the research material was collected. What was the size of the general population, confidence level, maximum error, fraction, and sample size? Was the study representative?
The description of the results does not indicate the results in tabular/graphic form. There is only a description (interpretation of the results) that is not enough. There is no information regarding the regression (which technique was used for estimation). Please answer on what scale were the variables measured (or not ranked) and whether were they normally distributed (?). Is it reasonable to use R2 here, or should non-parametric measures be used?
The citation style is not MDPI compliant and needs improvement.
Only 36% of references come from the last 5 years, the reference structure should be changed. 70-80% of the latest references from the last 5 years (20-30% older but not outdated).
In reference 42 - the year is written incorrectly.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors try to investigate how infrastructure perception, travel satisfaction and pro-environmental attitudes influence the motivations for choosing cycling as a mode of transport.
The literature review is current and adequate to the authors’ research.
The results of the survey are difficult to follow in the form in which they are presented (tables would have been preferable). Graphic representations or applied models are necessary in order to determine R2, F and p results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study examined the factors influencing the motivation for choosing cycling as a mode of transport, including infrastructure perception, travel satisfaction, and pro-environmental attitudes. The study also considered demographic variables and mobility habits. After careful review, I have several remarks and suggestions for improvement before considering it for publication:
1. Please use the present tense in the abstract.
2. In the abstract, the statement "Some practical implications are also addressed" lacks specificity. Please provide clear and concise information about the practical implications derived from your study.
3. At the end of the first section, it would be beneficial to include two additional paragraphs. The first paragraph should outline the structure of the manuscript, summarizing the sections and their content. The second paragraph should highlight the gaps in the existing literature that your study aims to address.
4. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of tables and figures. These visual aids are essential for effectively presenting your results. All values mentioned in the Results section should be presented in appropriate tables.
5. The R-squared values reported in the manuscript appear to be relatively small. It is crucial to provide a justification for these values and discuss their implications in the context of your study. This will help in establishing the strength of the relationships observed.
6. The references cited in the manuscript include only one research article from 2022-2023. It is advisable to include more recent references to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. I recommend considering the following articles for inclusion:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100049
https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3030048
Acceptable
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Принять в настоящем виде.
Author Response
Once again, thank you for your dedication to reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I am satisfied with the improvement of the manuscript. However, I suggest moving tables 1-3 to the "Results" section.
The authors made many qualitative corrections.
Author Response
We have moved the tables in the results section. Once again, thank you for your dedication to reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks for addressing my previous remarks. The manuscript is now publishable. My only remark is:
Please put the tables in their correct positions in the manuscript.
Author Response
We have moved the tables in the results section. Once again, thank you for your dedication to reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
