Spatial Inequalities in Access to Micromobility Services: An Analysis of Moped-Style Scooter Sharing Systems in Barcelona

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting , but some issues should be corrected before considering publication.

 

Some comments and issues regarding the text of the manuscript:

 

- the introduction well described the topic background and the main aspect of the work,

 

- please consider including in the introduction in the background part or in the background section the reference to the public bus transport sysytems which are still dominating in the share of mobility in the eastern countries - https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/6/2238 ; since this is the Sustainability journal it can be clearly beneficial to mention something more about the environement , please you can use the following sources:  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-86976-2_47 ; https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/1/142 ; https://journal.ump.edu.my/ijame/article/view/4139

 

- please in case of mention of eg. some figure, such as Figure 1 in line 177, try to locate the figure closer to the mention, it is much easier for the reader to interprete the figure according to the description in the text,

 

- please avoid the form of "we" in the text, beacuse of this the article would sound less scietific,

 

- on figure 1 you are highliting the range of the services by each operator with purple lines, there are some purple figures insite tha range of the services, what does it mean, exluded area?

 

- please index squares in line 235,

 

- my suggestion is to create a map on which you can indicate only the range of each of the services with different colours and another without that range stated as the figure 1 right now, 

 

- I suggest also to prepare a simple graph showing  the logic of the methodology in the methodology section.

 

Thank you for the cooperations and congratulations for the great work. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for the comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We are confident that the paper is stronger as a result. Please see the attachment with our responses to the comments.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for considering this resubmission. We appreciate your time and look forward to your responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a binomial generalized linear mixed model to predict the likelihood of a cadastral parcel being covered by a moped-sharing service area.

 

The paper is well written and I only have very few comments.

 

Major:

1.         In the literature review, I would have liked to see a table illustrating the variables (e.g. income, population density) that might affect shared mobility based on other literature and how they might affect shared mobility. Please include other forms of shared mobility and not just shared mopeds.

 

Minor:

2.         Please specify the meaning of the grey outline in Figures 1 and 2, even if it is obvious.

3.         I would prefer if the maps would be oriented north and not angled.

4.         3.2.2, please add how income affects shared mobility according to the paper [27].

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for the comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We are confident that the paper is stronger as a result. Please see the attachment with our responses to the comments.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for considering this resubmission. We appreciate your time and look forward to your responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper aims to analyze the socio-territorial characteristics of the four sharing services coverage areas in the city of Barcelona. A linear binomial mixed model is used to analyze the population density between 21 and 49 years old, household income, accessibility to public transport, slope, distance from the city center, and the presence of metropolitan/supra-municipal structures compared to service coverage areas.

The research questions are current and are broadly answered in the discussion of the document. The bibliographic research is good and covers issues related to the use of micromobility devices, also from a social point of view and the methodology used for the analysis. The results of the article show the criteria for which certain areas of the city are considered as service areas compared to others. Furthermore, the limitations of the paper are well discussed, and some future research is suggested.

Here below are some major and minor suggestions to improve the quality and effectiveness of the paper:

Major comment 1

The clarity of this paper should be polished especially regarding the contributions. Indeed, the authors must add and discuss more deeply the main contributions. Why is your work original? How do the authors advance the research in this field? What is the difference between your paper and the others considered? Make clearer the differences.

Major comment 2

At the end of the literature, please highlight better the gaps this paper aims to address. The information provided is not clear.

Major comment 3

Section 1 shows a quick generic literature review on shared micromobility. In lines 50-53, there is little literature on moped-sharing services, but a lot on using these means. The analysis does not consider two literature reviews published some years ago. Below are the references; we recommend incorporating them into the analysis:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073692

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229505

Major comment 4

Section 7, line 553, suggests future work with more homogeneous land parcels. The addition of other potential variables in the choice of use of these systems is also suggested. In this regard, it is suggested to consider the level of sustainability in using these vehicles, as suggested:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169226

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Comment 1

For figure 1 it is suggested to distinguish the information in two maps: one showing the different areas served by the companies (with different colors) and the other with the variables considered.

Minor Comment 2

Provide the odd ration in table 3.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for the comments and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We are confident that the paper is stronger as a result. Please see the attachment with our responses to the comments.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for considering this resubmission. We appreciate your time and look forward to your responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I believe that accepting the suggestions has greatly improved your work. The reasons for each change are also appreciated.

It is accepted without further comment.