Investigating Access to Schools through Walking: A Study of Built School Road Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Investigating access to schools through walking: a study of built School Road Networks

General comments

The article discusses the importance of promoting sustainable mobility among young people, particularly in the context of school transportation. While the topic is highly relevant given growing concerns about environmental sustainability and urban congestion, the article has several weaknesses and areas that need improvement.

The article lacks clear organization, making it difficult for readers to follow the main arguments and flow of ideas. It jumps between discussing the importance of sustainable mobility, the specific case study of Carini, and technical details about traffic simulation without a clear transition between sections. A more structured approach with clearly defined sections would enhance readability.

While the article discusses the use of microsimulation tools and data collection methods, it lacks transparency regarding the specific methodologies used and the reliability of the data sources. Readers are left wondering about the validity and representativeness of the findings presented, as there is limited information on sample size, data collection procedures, and potential biases in the analysis.

The article contains a significant amount of technical jargon related to traffic simulation and urban planning, which may alienate readers who are not familiar with these concepts. Simplifying the language and providing explanations or definitions for complex terms would make the content more accessible to a broader audience.

The article does not adequately discuss the limitations of the study or suggest avenues for future research. Every research study has inherent limitations, such as sample bias, methodological constraints, or external factors that may influence the results. Acknowledging these limitations and proposing future research directions would strengthen the scholarly contribution of the article.

The study focuses on a specific case study in Carini, limiting its generalizability to other contexts. While case studies can provide valuable insights, it is essential to contextualize the findings and discuss their applicability to other settings. A broader discussion on how the lessons learned from Carini could be applied to other urban areas would enhance the relevance of the study.

The article does not mention any stakeholder engagement or community involvement in the design and implementation of the Walking Bus School project. Engaging stakeholders, including parents, local authorities, and school administrators, is crucial for the success and sustainability of such initiatives. Discussing stakeholder perspectives and involvement would provide a more holistic understanding of the project's impact.

While the article briefly mentions socioeconomic status as a factor influencing walking to school, it lacks a robust discussion on social equity issues related to sustainable mobility. Access to safe and sustainable transportation options is often unequally distributed across different socioeconomic groups, with marginalized communities facing greater barriers to active transportation. A more in-depth analysis of equity considerations would enrich the discussion and highlight the importance of addressing social disparities in urban planning initiatives.

While the article mentions the potential benefits of implementing Walking Bus School routes, it does not clearly outline the policy implications or recommendations for policymakers, urban planners, or community stakeholders. Providing actionable recommendations based on the study findings would facilitate the translation of research into practice and support evidence-based decision-making in urban transportation planning.

Specific comments

References are mentioned throughout the article without proper citation or formatting. [1.], [2.], [3.], etc. should be without dots inside brackets. Additionally, some statements lack proper citations to support the claims made, undermining the credibility of the arguments presented. A good literature review is necessary before doing any research, and here it is clear that it has not been done.

The article lacks visual aids, such as tables, figures, or diagrams, to illustrate key concepts, data trends, or the study area. Incorporating visual elements would enhance the presentation of information and make the content more engaging and accessible to readers.

The discussion section is missing, and it is mandatory. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for taking the time to review. I have taken all indications into account and fully reviewed the paper. 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled Investigating access to schools through walking: a study of built School Road Networks focuses on the importance of walking to and from school for children and young people, and the potential impact of interventions in the road network to improve walking practices among this population. This study contains some interesting findings:

1. Investigating the accessibility of schools via walking and the impact of road network interventions on children and young people's walking habits.

2. Developing and implementing a microsimulation traffic flow model to assess the effects of Walking School Bus demand on traffic performance and traffic flow delay due to different routes.

3. Utilizing big data collected via GPS to optimize pedestrian routes, timings, and traffic management strategies, aiming to increase the number of students walking to school.

However, lack of comprehensive discussion is the major flaw of the study. Therefore, MAJOR/MINOR revision has to be done before this manuscript could be accepted for publication in the Electronics.

Major comments:

1. The paper lacks a comprehensive discussion of the limitations of the microsimulation traffic flow model used to evaluate the impact of Walking School Bus demands on traffic performance and traffic flow delay.

2. The study's focus on a specific strategy in Carini, Italy, to increase children walking to school limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts and may not offer a holistic understanding of factors influencing walking habits among children and young people.

3. The paper overlooks potential challenges to implementing the Walking School Bus service, such as parental attitudes, socioeconomic factors, and the built environment, which are known to influence walking to school. Additionally, it fails to discuss limitations or biases associated with using GPS data for traffic simulation modeling.

Minor comments:

1. Line 24-27, Please add reference(s).

2. Image labels should be in a uniform format(Figure X.)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English language in the manuscript is satisfactory. However, there are some areas where improvements could be made for clarity and fluency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for taking the time to review. I have taken all indications into account and fully reviewed the paper. 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study attempts to evaluate the effects of implementing a Walking School Bus using microsimulation. The results indicate that the implementation of this policy led to a reduction in traffic density around the target school and a decrease in vehicle speeds at student pickup point, resulting in increased safety. This is an interesting study that aims to evaluate a policy implemented as part of the European Mobility Week, and it is considered worthy of publication.

 However, some descriptions of the situation and analysis methods are uncertain and need clarification. It would be desirable to provide additional explanation on the following points:

Line 104: It is desirable to include photos that depict the local situation, such as crowded conditions in front of the school.

 Line 142: Several specific street names, such as Prano Street, are mentioned, but its location is unclear. It would be helpful to indicate these streets on a map.

 Line 191: What type of GPS data is being used? Is it collected by third parties, or is it collected independently by the authors? What is the sample size, and what is the duration of data collection? Detailed information about the data should be provided.

 Line 241: When was the European Mobility Week implemented? How does it relate to the Walking School Bus? This relationship should be explained.

 Line 270: Calibration was mentioned, but no information about the evaluation of reproducibility was provided. It is necessary to organize and present information regarding the calibration process and the achieved accuracy.

 Line 277: What does Figure 5 represents? In particular, clarification on what the “Times“ graph signifies is necessary.

 Line 283: It is stated that traffic volume decreased by an average of 54%, but is this based on simulation results? What was the actual observed decrease in traffic volume?

 Line 302: What is the meaning of the differences in scenarios in the figure 8. The assumptions and results should be explained.

 

Author Response

dear Reviewer ,
I have completely revised the paper, taking into account all the suggestions.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The authors in this second version have significantly improved the manuscript following the indications of the first report.

However, the manuscript still lacks the discussion section; the authors have renamed the results section by adding the discussion, but it is not included. The discussion section should should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

Specific comments

The name of the different sections and subsections must begin in capital letters.

Author Response

Comments 1: the manuscript still lacks the discussion section; the authors have renamed the results section by adding the discussion, but it is not included. The discussion section should should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Some additional commentary was included in the results section, for instance, on the willingness of parents to participate in the experiment or the location of car parks.

 

Comments 2: Specific comments

The name of the different sections and subsections must begin in capital letters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made further revisions to the article and has agreed to its acceptance. The article suggests expanding the scope of case studies to include different urban locations and backgrounds.This expansion will help to more comprehensively evaluate the impact of walking school bus services on traffic flow and student activity. By comparing various urban settings, a better understanding of the applicability and effectiveness of this service in different environments can be achieved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to further enhance the expression in English.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is recommended to further enhance the expression in English.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. An effort has been made to improve English language

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most comments from the previous review have been appropriately addressed, and I believe the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. However, the explanation of Figure 5 suggests that the only difference in the report's configurations is the date, making it unnecessary to divide this information into two figures. It is particularly unclear what the 'Times' figure is intended to show. Although the figure includes days of the week and times, the significance of the color differences in the table, whether there is a distinction between the 'Pre-event' and 'Walking Bus School', or if there are no differences, remains unclear. The interpretation of the figure is still ambiguous. If the only difference is the dates, explaining this within the text, rather than separating it into distinct figures, would likely be less confusing for readers.

Author Response

Comments 1:  The interpretation of the figure is still ambiguous. If the only difference is the dates, explaining this within the text, rather than separating it into distinct figures, would likely be less confusing for readers.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. we have further described the content of the figure

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf