Analyzing the Requirements for Smart Pedestrian Applications: Findings from Nicosia, Cyprus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written and sounded interesting and relative to the journal's scope. However, after reading the article, I could document the following weaknesses, which must be addressed:

1. The grounded problem must be strengthened in the introduction section. At this stage, it appears that the article aims to explore the SPN potential (lines 70-72) with findings from a survey in Cyprus. The authors could define a 1-2 research questions (i.e., What are the requirements for a SPN applications? ) and explain why the problem is important. Moreover, they must explain in brief that the research methodology that is applied is a survey (not a case) in Cyprus. In this regard the article's title should be also revised to something like "Requirements for Smart Pedestrian Network Applications: findings from Nicosia, Cyprus" 

2.  It seems that the authors have some particular cities in mind, which they must explain. There are numerous cities around the world, where walkability is discouraged due to physical characteristics (i.e., hills and rivers etc.) or to limited and disconnected pedestrian lanes, climate conditions (i.e., desert, humidity etc.) or distances (in megacities). The authors must explain how SPN deals with these urban features or explain the types of cities that this study covers.

3.  The overall study seems to be too brief. The authors did not ustilize the literature findings about walkable cities and conclude to 2 findings regarding the importance of SPN (a: for exercise; b: for walking). Moreover, isn't walking a type of physical exercice? Findings about the pedestrian lanes' conditions are not summarized. In this respect, what are the useful findings that are extracted from the research methodology? 

4. The conclusions section underlines the role of walking decisions, which were not addressed (clearly) during the survey.  Moreover, there are several limitations that are not incorporated, including the evidence from a single city (that are hard to be generalized) and the sample's size. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have made the following revisions to address the concerns you raised:

Strengthening the Grounded Problem: We have revised the introduction to provide a clearer statement of the problem and its relevance, particularly emphasizing the need for enhancing urban mobility and pedestrian experience through Smart Pedestrian Network applications.

Defining Research Questions: We have clarified our research questions within the introduction to specifically focus on:

• What are the essential requirements for Smart Pedestrian Network applications in Nicosia?
• How can these applications improve pedestrian mobility and urban infrastructure?

Importance of the Problem: We have expanded the discussion on the importance of the problem, highlighting the benefits of improved pedestrian networks for urban sustainability, public health, and social inclusion.

Research Methodology: We have clarified that our study utilized a survey-based approach, conducted in strategically selected urban areas of Nicosia, Cyprus, to collect both qualitative and quantitative data.

Title Revision: The title of the manuscript has been updated to "Analyzing the Requirements for Smart Pedestrian Applications: Findings from Nicosia, Cyprus" to better reflect the focus and geographic specificity of our research.

In response to your concern about how the Smart Pedestrian app adapts to diverse urban environments, we have made the following additions to our manuscript to address these concerns:

Addressing Urban Features: We have discussed the impact of various urban features, including climate conditions and city layouts, on walkability. Specifically, we've elaborated on how Cyprus's favorable climatic conditions support walking and cycling, despite challenges posed by urban infrastructure (refer to the Introduction, Smartphone Applications for Pedestrians and Discussion sections).

Technological Adaptations for Different Urban Contexts: We have expanded our discussion on the role of technology, such as Big Data, in adapting the applications to different urban settings, focusing on how these tools can help overcome barriers like irregular terrains and disconnected pedestrian lanes (lines 148-151).

Focus on Medium-Sized Cities:  The manuscript now includes insights into the specific challenges and solutions relevant to medium-sized cities like Nicosia, highlighting how strategic use of ICT and ITS can foster shifts towards more active mobility. We acknowledge the limited research on larger urban areas and megacities, suggesting this as a potential area for future exploration.

Also, we have expanded our literature review to more thoroughly integrate findings from existing studies on walkable cities. This expansion has allowed us to link these studies to observed variations in Smart Pedestrian app effectiveness, thereby adopting a more nuanced approach to urban design principles in our analysis. Additionally, we have clarified the distinction between walking as a daily activity and as exercise within the discussion section of our paper. This distinction emphasizes different motivations and infrastructure dependencies for each, addressing the varied contexts in which walking occurs. Furthermore, a new paragraph in the results section details how pedestrian lane conditions directly impact walking behaviors. This aligns with broader urban mobility trends identified through our research methodology, further underscoring the practical implications of our findings on urban planning and public health. These revisions address your concerns regarding the depth and specificity of our analysis and highlight the manuscript’s contributions to the fields of urban planning and public health.

Finally, in the revised conclusions section, we have clarified how walking decisions are derived from the survey responses related to pedestrian safety and comfort. This direct linkage ensures that the role of walking decisions, as influenced by these factors, is clearly articulated, addressing your concern about their clarity in the survey analysis.

We have also explicitly acknowledged the limitations of our study, including the sample size and the geographical focus on a single city. These acknowledgments are now clearly stated in the conclusions section, where we discuss the implications of these limitations for the generalizability of our findings. We emphasize that while our results provide valuable initial insights, they should be viewed as a preliminary step toward more comprehensive research.

Additionally, we have enhanced the conclusion to underline the need for further research across diverse urban settings. This includes a stronger discussion on the integration of urban design principles and technology in promoting pedestrian-friendly environments. Our revised manuscript now proposes specific directions for future research, suggesting the expansion of the study to include multiple cities and the incorporation of advanced technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT) for deeper insights into user behaviors and preferences.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the potential of a smartphone application aimed at enhancing pedestrian experiences by providing optimized walking routes and improving connectivity within urban environments. Focused on Nicosia, Cyprus, the research aims to gauge public attitudes towards pedestrian infrastructure and the appeal of technology in promoting walking, countering the dominance of vehicle use.

Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study combines quantitative data analysis with qualitative feedback gathered through surveys conducted in diverse urban settings within Nicosia. This methodology enables a comprehensive examination of current pedestrian network conditions, user preferences, and the overall market demand for a pedestrian-oriented navigation application.

Findings reveal a strong preference for walking among urban residents, hindered by existing inadequacies in pedestrian infrastructure. The research underscores the necessity for a sustainable business model to support the application's development and widespread adoption.

In conclusion, leveraging technology to enhance pedestrian mobility emerges as a viable strategy for reducing vehicular reliance. The study advocates for urban planning initiatives that prioritize environmental sustainability, public health, and the enhancement of urban quality of life. It emphasizes the importance of integrating technology with urban infrastructure to create pedestrian-friendly environments conducive to overall well-being.

The article is well written, linked and the ideas that the authors intend to convey are clearly understood.

In my opinion, the objectives in the introduction section should be clearer and the authors should also highlight the added value or contributions to the research area.

Section 2.2 is supposed to address mobile application development METHODS, but it does not mention anything in that sense, so I suggest changing the name of the section to something like: "Practical applicability of mobile applications" as authors focus on different areas of  mobile application.

It would be interesting to present a comparative table of the state of the art of the characteristics used in mobile applications for pedestrians.

While the research presented in this paper provides valuable insights into the topic at hand, it is worth noting that some of the bibliographic references cited may be outdated. In rapidly evolving fields, such as pedestrian mobility, newer studies and findings could have emerged since the publication of these references. Therefore, authors are encouraged to supplement their understanding with more recent literature to ensure they have access to the most current perspectives and advancements in the field.

An inaccuracy: reference 28 was accessed in the future (June 6, 2024) - correct, please.

It was not clear to me how the application would map the paths and propose the best routes, as well as update route changes on these paths (such as works that influenced access to the sidewalks).

Despite this, I think the theme has potential and is promising in terms of sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for your thorough review and suggestions, which have significantly enriched our manuscript. Below are the revisions and enhancements we've implemented in response to your comments:

Clarification of Objectives and Contributions: We have clarified the objectives in the introduction section, focusing on identifying key preconditions that encourage pedestrian activities and exploring the challenges that may discourage walkability. We have also emphasized how our study contributes to the integration of technology in pedestrian infrastructure improvement, which is crucial for urban planning.

Section Naming and Content: In response to your suggestion, we have revised the title of Section 2.2 to "Efficacy of ICT/ITS Mobile Applications" to more accurately reflect its content, which focuses on the real-world application of mobile technology in enhancing pedestrian experiences. This change ensures that the section title aligns with the discussed content.

Updated Bibliographic References: We have updated our literature review to include several recent studies, ensuring our analysis reflects the latest developments in pedestrian mobility. The references now include significant contributions from 2019 to 2024, incorporating the most current perspectives and advancements in the field.

Inclusion of a Comparative Table: A comparative table of the characteristics used in mobile applications for pedestrians has been added. This table provides a clear and organized overview of various applications' features, facilitating an easier comparison and enhancing our discussion on the state of the art in pedestrian mobility apps (lines: 310-311).

Correction of Bibliographic Inaccuracy: We have corrected the inaccuracy concerning reference 28, which was incorrectly dated in the future.

Detailed Methodology on Mapping and Route Updates: We have enhanced the methodology section to include detailed descriptions of how the Smart Pedestrian application maps routes, proposes the best routes, and updates for changes like construction. The SPN application uses GIS technology and incorporates algorithms that consider various factors for route optimization. Additionally, it integrates real-time data from municipal sources and user feedback, ensuring the app can promptly update pathways influenced by temporary obstructions or changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

We were reading the paper with interest but have the following critical comment

We found that you published similar work see references below. We also found recent work on similar topics see below

2. Survey work has been done also by others, we are interested in a prototype, the current paper provides no info. Maybe a first prototype would be nice to be tested for usability.

3. The authors mention potential developments, but provide no info

4. The survey study using questionaires is nicely done but from a scientific viewpoint not innovative.

5. the authors take 2 areas as examples, we were wondering if all respondents have sufficient knowledge of these two areas

6. The authors stress the market aspect but in many cases similar apps are free of charge

7. we could not find details about the respondents, how is the selection done, how many respondents participated in the survey  and how many refused

a.George Papageorgiou,Demetris Demetriou, Eudokia Balamou, Athanasios Maimaris.  Market Research and Concept Study for a Smart Pedestrian Network Application. PETRA '18: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference

 

b.Mona Jabbari , Fernando Fonseca , Göran Smith , Elisa Conticelli , Simona Tondelli , Paulo Ribeiro , Zahra Ahmadi , George Papageorgiou , Rui Ramos. The Pedestrian Network Concept: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Urban MobilityVolume 3, December 2023, 100051

 

c. Fernando Fonseca, Escolástica Fernandes, Rui Ramo. Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14(16),

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for highlighting the related works in our field. In response to your concerns:

Prototype and Methodology Enhancements: We have emphasized our prototype-driven approach in the methodology and conclusion sections, detailing the development and initial testing of the Smart Pedestrian application prototype. This includes descriptions of the technical specifications, functionalities, and user feedback, which are essential for understanding the prototype's impact on urban mobility.

Future Technologies and Innovations: We have expanded the discussion in the conclusion to include detailed plans for integrating advanced technologies such as real-time data analytics. These technologies are aimed at enhancing the application's utility and user experience by providing dynamic routing adjustments and immersive navigational cues.

Scientific Contributions and Survey Details: Our manuscript outlines significant enhancements in scientific contributions through advanced analytical techniques and proposes a longitudinal study design for future research. We have also provided detailed information about our survey methodology, ensuring clarity on the selection process and respondent demographics.

Market Positioning and Economic Considerations: We address the competitive landscape by proposing a freemium business model and discussing strategic partnerships with local businesses and city governments. These strategies aim to position the application competitively, offering unique value beyond existing free applications.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In my last review I stated some points which should be improved. In you response you make general statements and from the highlights in the text we don't see what has been changed.

1. We stated that in many cities touristic apps have been designed,  implemented and evaluated. The current version of the paper is still about the design of a touristic app, users requirements and wishes.

2. In our last review we asked for a prototype which could be evaluated in a users test. This provides much more insights than questionaires 

3. The paper was based on a former study published in proceedings, this point is still not processed.

4. The paper has been written very well, but we prefer also some code of an implementation

5. We recommend incremental design approach, composed of fast prototyping. The current paper presents a user study still far away from implementation

6. At this moment many touristic apps exist, but these apps are not reviewed by the authors or taken as first design/prototype

Author Response

In response to the points raised in your last review, we have made the following revisions and clarifications:

1. We acknowledged that many cities have designed, implemented, and evaluated touristic apps. To address this, we revised the Introduction and the 2.3. Smartphone Applications for Pedestrians section to include examples of successful touristic apps. This aims to provide a broader context and demonstrate the practical applications and benefits of such apps.
2. While we understand the importance of evaluating a prototype through user testing for comprehensive insights, resource constraints prevented us from developing a full prototype. Instead, we reviewed existing literature on similar applications to draw parallels and infer potential user interactions. This approach has provided valuable insights into potential user needs and preferences.
3. We addressed the connection to our former study published in proceedings by adding references in the Introduction and Discussion sections. This establishes the foundational context and highlights the demand for enhanced pedestrian infrastructure identified in our earlier study. The current research builds on these insights by providing a more granular analysis of pedestrian behavior across different urban settings, demonstrating the continuous development of our work in improving urban walkability.
4. While the paper has been well-received for its writing, we acknowledge the request for implementation code. However, due to resource constraints, we focused on the conceptual and analytical aspects of the study.
5. To incorporate an incremental design approach, we introduced a basic route optimization feature as an initial prototype. This demonstrates the practical aspects of the Smart Pedestrian Application we propose, aligning with the recommended fast prototyping methodology.
6. We reviewed existing literature on similar touristic applications to ensure our study is informed by current developments in the field. This review helped us draw relevant parallels and refine our design and implementation strategies accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

As I stated already there are already many Apps available. So I expect from the current App not only a design but an implemented version and user test.

We expect you will implement and test a version next future and wish you much success