Health Impacts of COVID-19 through the Changes in Mobility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 1 is fascinating and clearly illustrates the scope of this paper. I would suggest the authors add some references to support their selection of the six areas in the first ripple.

The data sources for some figures are missing. Please specify the data source for all your figures.

Since this paper is a review paper, the authors need to briefly explain what review method they performed and what criteria guided their literature screening and selection.

Traffic safety is included in both the first and second ripple. Meanwhile, traffic safety and road crashes are listed separately as different health pathways. Could you please explain the difference between traffic safety in the first and second ripple and the difference between the traffic safety and crash pathways?  

The subtitles in your section 3 cannot match up with the health pathways in your Figure 1.

Some subsections are overlapped, for example, the last paragraph in 3.12 mobility independence and sec 3.9 physical inactivity.

The relationship between your first ripple and social exclusion is unclear. It seems the social exclusion is directly caused by COVID-19, not secondarily triggered by the transportation change.

My biggest concern in this paper is the linkage between your first ripple and second ripple is unclear. If you want to explore the secondary health impacts of COVID-19 raised by changes in transportation, the linkages between transport changes and the health pathways need to be clearly explained and illustrated.

In section 3, some subsections just simply listed the review results. The authors are suggested briefly summarize the findings at the end of each subsection.

The discussion can be improved by linking the key findings from this study to urban planning or policymaking process.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the time and effort the reviewers put into critiquing this manuscript. The reviewers’ comments were constructive and valuable. Details on the authors’ responses to each comment are presented below. For ease of reference, the reviewers’ comments are repeated in full using Time New Roman font and italics. Our responses are typed in blue in the same font and normal letters. We refer to the language inside the manuscript using Calibri font.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented in the paper is interesting and still on time. In the reviewed paper, the Authors studied the secondary health impacts of covid-19 through the changes in transportation using a ripple effect mode. The Authors defined tree ripples in order to reflect the impacts of covid-19 on transportation and the systems behind it, transportation-related health risk factors, and on public health. Covid-19 impacts on transportation were synthesized through six areas: transportation demand, transportation mode, traffic safety, land use and built environment, transportation jobs, and transportation equity. These changes were further associated with decreased transportation-related air pollution, greenhouse gases, noise, heat, and stress. Higher rates of road casualties were observed in the area of covid-19. Social exclusion and limitations in accessibility to healthcare and healthy food were identified as negative consequences of changes in transportation. There are uncertainties in the rate of active transportation i.e., walking and cycling, and related crashes that require further investigations. The findings of this study uncover the complex and relatively unknown impacts of covid-19 on public health through changes in transportation. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into account the following remarks:

- in the "Keywords" section, the keyword "sustainable transportation" should be added,

- before the paper publishing, the English should be checked by a professional Native Speaker,

- at the end of the Introduction section, the Authors should add short information what was contained in each paper section,

- on the figure called "Figure 2. Percent change of routing requests from 2020-01-13 to 2020-09-08" the names and units of the axis "x" and axis "y" should be added,

- figure 2 had a source [34]. According to the Sustainability journal policy in all such cases (i.e. when the Authors take a table/figure/photo from another author) the written permission for the further use of this figure should be submitted together with the paper to the publishing office,

- in the subsection called "2.1 Mobility Demand" the Authors described the decrease in the number of journeys made by various means of transport, a decrease in the number of kilometers traveled, decrease in the number of travelers. It is true, but the Authors should also mention about the drastic decrease in traffic volume on the transport network, which varied depending on the stage and form of the lockdown. Thus, the Authors should refer to the latest research works in this field. i.e. "Extracting road traffic volume in the city before and during covid-19 through video remote sensing", doi 10.3390 / rs13122329; "The Impacts of COVID-19 and Policies on Spatial and Temporal Distribution Characteristics of Traffic: Two Examples in Beijing", doi.org/10.3390/su14031733. One short paragraph in this subsection will be enough,

- in a subsection called "2.3. Traffic Safety", the Authors wrote like follows... "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a comparative analysis of road crashes and showed a lower number of crashes during the pandemic [35]". Yes, it is true, but the Authors should also add the information that the decrease in the number of roads crashes is directly connected with decrease the road traffic volume,

- in the individual sections and subsections, the Authors presented the review dedicated to different issues connected with the health impacts of covid-19 through the changes in mobility. In the section called "4. Discussion", the Authors provided some discussion dedicated to obtained results. It is good, but there is a lack of Conclusions section. This section should also be included in the paper. In this section, the Authors should provide major conclusions from the review presented in the paper.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the time and effort the reviewers put into critiquing this manuscript. The reviewers’ comments were constructive and valuable. Details on the authors’ responses to each comment are presented below. For ease of reference, the reviewers’ comments are repeated in full using Time New Roman font and italics. Our responses are typed in blue in the same font and normal letters. We refer to the language inside the manuscript using Calibri font.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf