Examining the Role of Innovative Streets in Enhancing Urban Mobility and Livability for Sustainable Urban Transition: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is written properly and timely.
But the concept of smart streets in not explained in detailed outcomes for sustainable cities.
Constructive points must be added in a table in different sectors where this concept of smart streets will help.
in the last section more clear research gaps must be highlighted.
rest the concept of considering smart streets in really interesting
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I find this paper interesting and well written, even if there are some limitations of the research that should be clarified. The declared purpose of the authors is to investigate the synergies and potential conflicts regarding urban mobility and urban livability. In other words, the question pointed out by the authors is related to the identity and rules of the streets: if they are to be designed as transportation routes or social places.
The paper, passing through a literature review, posits in the conclusions that streets have to serve both transportation and social purposes at the same time. Then, the suggestion that you give to the urban planners and street designers is to strengthen the synergy between urban mobility and livability instead of enlarging the conflicts.
However, it should be considered that the streets in a city are very different from each other, in terms of role, size, urban function: some are more devoted to the use of pedestrians, when urban fronts have commercial activities on the ground floor; other streets are residential and still others are roadways.
I suggest to the authors to better clarify in the conclusions which are the limitations of the research, better arguing that the urban road redevelopment project is a much more complex issue, if we consider it from the point of view of urban planning and street design.
Revisions are mainly due to the fact that (i) the manuscript needs a better definition, academic ground and positioning in the discipline, which is now a bit rather generic and not completely addressing the main disciplinary issue, (ii) the manuscript also needs a more detailed part explaining originality and novelty of the paper, which can be addressed in the introduction or in the discussion, depending on the final decision of the author; (iii) the manuscript finally needs a broader conclusion section, especially to clarify the possible , future research lines, so we encourage authors to better details the future research that can stem from this paper. In this perspective, I would suggest a better definition and description of the policy implications stemming from the empirical approach of this study. I remain sympathetic with the paper, but I would see some revisions before publication. I believe these revisions will contribute to improve the quality and readability of this text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for giving me chance for reviewing. I'm sending my general comments for the article. These are may be helpful to improve the study.
General Comments.
-It is very hard to understand methodology section. I would do some flow chart and diagrams that explain the study's method and flow. This will improve the quality of the paper I believe.
-I need to ask how the correlations between main policies and key words were settled? This point is blur in the article.
-The author(s) mentioned about sustainable urban transition. I would check sustainable urban development goals SDG goals and find relative indicators about urban mobility and livability and connect them to objectives-factors coming from surveyed articles. It is important to discuss current and updated debate for Sustainable Urban Development policy.
-Definitely the article needs better resolution for figure 2 in the study.
-I would check quality of life studies and enlarge the discussion about innovative streets.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the author(s) for considering our comments and critiques for the improvement. The article can be accepted in this form to me.
Best Regards.
