Development of an Active Transportation Framework Model for Sustainable Urban Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly incorporated my comments and suggestions; however, the results section remains weak. They have added the methods applied, but I did not see the SEM results in this section. Please improve the results section to align it with the described methods.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1

The authors have significantly incorporated my comments and suggestions; however, the results section remains weak. They have added the methods applied, but I did not see the SEM results in this section. Please improve the results section to align it with the described methods.

Response 1

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the results section to incorporate the SEM results as described in the methods.

Comment 2

Minor editing of the English language required

Response 2

Done.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for addressing each issue.

Author Response

Comment 1

thank you for addressing each issue.

Response 1

Thank you for your feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the authors have incorporated all my comments, but a minor revision is still needed. I am still uncertain about the results explained textually. I did not see the SEM p-value mentioned in the text or in the model figure. If possible, please add those statistics. Additionally, the mathematical model equations and their interpretation in the text seem unreasonable to me. I think they should be arranged in a paragraph, if possible. Thanks.

Author Response

Comment 1

The authors have significantly incorporated my comments and suggestions; however, the results section remains weak. They have added the methods applied, but I did not see the SEM results in this section. Please improve the results section to align it with the described methods.

Response 1

Regarding your concern about the SEM results in the results section, we would like to clarify that our study does not include empirical SEM results at this stage. The article proposes the SEM method as a framework for future research to evaluate the hypothesized relationships. The current study focuses on conceptualizing the model and outlining the methodology for future empirical testing.

Specifically, our paper introduces a multi-dimensional conceptual framework and discusses the potential of SEM to validate the proposed relationships between active transportation, health status, and quality of life in future studies. We have highlighted the anticipated direct and indirect effects that SEM could reveal once empirical data is collected and analyzed. However, the actual SEM analysis and results will be a part of subsequent research, as clearly indicated in our manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the facilitators of active transportation and assesses its impact on health, well-being, and urban sustainability. Specifically, a multidimensional framework is developed to analyze the determinants influencing individuals' propensity to engage in active transportation. While the study is interesting, the authors need to address the major comments to improve the paper, and it still requires careful revision.

The sustainable development goals should be linked in the background, which will provide a broader perspective of this study.

Consider replacing "journey distance" with "travel distance" in line #80.

The authors have explained the literature review well, but it is essential to clearly state the objectives and contributions at the end of the introduction. Additionally, including an outline of the study could guide readers through the subsequent sections.

The authors should consider the latest studies relevant to the topic. References such as DOI: 10.1007/s00521-021-06015-5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103074 could be helpful.

The authors need to add some mathematical formulations or equations of the developed network.

The paper appears more like a report, and the analysis and discussion part is just textual and lacks details on demographic characteristics, relationships, tables, and data. If the model is developed, it should be showcased through case study applications to verify its validity and reliability.

 

There is a lack of tabulated data or figures demonstrating the model's efficacy. How can one assert that the model is effective without any analysis and results?
Revise the method, results and discussion carefully.

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

To be honest, your paper seems a reconstruction of what has been done without a concrete improvement in what can still be done to truly improve active transportation. The topic is hot, now more than ever but the lack of novelty, research advancements, and originality in your work makes it inappropriate for publication. Below, there are some comments that I reported just to make you aware of what I mean.

1) WHO goals

Authors state that the World Health Organization declares the urgent need to promote physical activity universally, given its profound impact on health and well-being. To be more incisive, I recommend introduce also the goals for sustainable development (for sure the objective 11.2, but also the 3.6 is appropriate).

2) Extend introduction or literature review

The paper shall be expanded by including the importance of complete streets to increase the physical activity the perceived convenience of more active transportation modes like walking, running, or cycling. Authors may refer to https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013142.

 

3) Variables Influencing Active Transportation and Physical Activity section

The authors rapidly mention to safety as a factor contributing to physical inactivity: “Other impactful factors include travel costs, safety, and route flexibility”, line 73 at page 2. This is absolutely true and must be better highlighted that pedestrians and cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users. Each year, roughly 50% of road fatalities are pedestrians and cyclists. Please, add more on this topic (authors may draw inspiration from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107275).

4) where is the novelty in your paper?

 

5) the paper seems more a state of the art rather than a research paper. The authors resume the main factors responsible for physical inactivity, but these factors are collected on the basis of past studies so that new research hasn’t been carried out as well as online/physical questionnaires have not been conducted to gather information on the topic.