The Built Environment and Children’s Active Commuting to School: A Case Study of San Pedro De Macoris, the Dominican Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

line 49: a space is needed between % and of;

line 281: a sentence is repeated twice

Some photos of the urban environment can help to better understand the situation studied.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is very interesting, as the problem of active mobility is widely discussed in different fields. Especially the link between environmental conditions and mobility, in general, is getting a lot of attention. Additionally, the situation in Latin America is not properly recognized in the literature, therefore the article makes a contribution to the existing knowledge. The title is specific and well formulated.

The overall structure of the manuscript is clear, however, it is suggested to give a better picture of the urban conditions specific to the Dominican Republic. Are they similar to some others in Latin America or different and if so, to what extent?

Additionally, in order to better place the research within the current knowledge, it is suggested to briefly mention that supporting pedestrian mobility is fundamental when it comes to sustainable urban development. Active transportation can reduce the environmental impact and it is positively connected with preventing social exclusion.

The list of references is generally up-to-date and supports the research.

The figures illustrate the content well and are clear. It is suggested better explain Figure 1 – the Study Area – in what neighbourhoods are the schools located, and what are the general characteristics of the selected city in terms of urban development.

Conclusions are drawn from the research and supported by the results of the analysis. Discussion is a valuable part of the study.

Detailed comments are presented below

24. This sentence is unclear. Does the study focus on neighbourhood imbalances? It is suggested to remove the sentence.

 

53-54. Although car ownership increased significantly, it is still below the average of for example the  European Union. In Luxembourg, the car ownership rate is as high as almost 700 cars per 1000 inhabitants. This issue should be addressed to place the research in a wider context.

 

58. This should be explained in more detail. Does the study refer to the income issues?

 

68-70. This sentence does not result from the previous statements. Why this relation needs to be addressed? And why is it urgent?

 

99-100. This section icould be better formulated. It is also suggested to include the brief information on the selected method

 

111. It is suggested to include better background on the urban conditions of the selected city.

 

121. In this part the method should be better explained. Why was this method chosen and how it was altered to match the study purpose.

 

 

139. Why the 400m radius was chosen? It should be explained and rooted in literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focuses on how parents’ and children’s environmental perceptions vary and how children’s mode choice is influenced by physical features and perceived safety levels by using audit data and survey data in a combination of settings in the Dominican Republic. The study is interesting and draws some important conclusions, but the current version has some issues for the authors to consider as follows.

 

1.    it is recommended to separate the introduction and the literature review to increase the recognition of the theoretical contribution of this paper. In addition, the following papers should be added to the paper to enrich the literature review.

(1) Tang L, Liu Y, Li J L, et al. Pedestrian crossing design and analysis for symmetric intersections: Efficiency and safety[J]. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 2020, 142: 187-206.

(2) Xiao L, Yang L, Liu J, et al. Built environment correlates of the propensity of walking and cycling[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(20): 8752.

(3) Yang H, Lu X, Cherry C, et al. Spatial variations in active mode trip volume at intersections: a local analysis utilizing geographically weighted regression[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2017, 64: 184-194.

 

2. 33.44 % (N=102) of the survey data used in the paper came from children aged 6-12 years old, how can we ensure the validity of this part, since this age group has lower environmental awareness and knowledge compared to other age groups. In addition, the survey was collected through email and text messages linked to Google forums, so would children who do not have access to these services (e.g., children from poor families) be excluded from the study population?

3. In line 286, "To ensure consistency, two ordinal logit models of H1 with identical structure were created to assess children's and parents' perceptions of walking/bicycling safety (Table 5)." The paper does not give how the scale was divided for the dependent variable of the model. According to the definition in Table 2, "Do you feel safe walking and bicycling in the vicinity of your school?", this variable should be understood as an unordered binary variable, then the paper is problematic in establishing the ordinal logit model.

4. In the regression analysis, many insignificant variables were included in the modeling, so could there be a problem of multicollinearity?

5. Although the results are discussed in the final section of the paper, policy implications based on the relevant findings should be given so as to increase the likelihood of publication.

6. In the abstract of the paper it is mentioned that: The study assesses how parents' and children's environmental perceptions vary and how children' s mode choice is influenced by physical features and perceived safety levels. Although this paper models the influences of safety perception and traffic mode choice separately, the influence of safety perception on traffic mode choice is not studied in detail in the paper, nor is the variable safety perception put into a logit regression model to obtain the relationship between safety perception and mode choice.

7. Some minor issues.

(1). In Table 5, there is no Exp(B) as identified in the paper.

(2). For numbers in the paper, please keep the same number of decimal places.

(3). In line 251, "Differences were considered significant if the t-test P values were less than 0.05.", but the table shows "* Significant at the 0.1 level", please keep it uniform to avoid misunderstanding by readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My previous comments have been well addressed. Since the shared micromobility is getting popularity and has been adopted by many cities around the world. Authors should consider some alternatives in the future study, such as e-scooter sharing.