The Path to Sustainable and Equitable Mobility: Defining a Stakeholder-Informed Transportation System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract:
Line 15: "integrated, which should ..."
Introduction:
... Gil, Calado and Bentz REMOVE THE COMMA HERE [7] proved ...
Materials and Methods:
fine
Results:
fine
Discussion:
Line 220:... in the total of papers reviewed REMOVE THE COMMA HERE - highlights certain transport-related areas
Line 39: Spirin, Zavyalov, and Zavyalova REMOVE THE COMMA HERE [55] emphasised
Conclusion:
ok
References:
[26] - this is incomplete
[53] -doi or Vol;, paper number?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study aims to define the need for future mobility based on stakeholder requirements using a systematic literature review. I have some comments for consideration as follows:
1. Abstract section: in line 21, it is stated that “…its originality lies in the methodology used to…” Please add more clarification regarding this statement. As short as I know, the method of systematic literature review paired with a grounded theory approach is quite common. Please clarify.
2. Abstract and introduction section: I found it is not clear what you mean by ‘transportation network’, whether it is a system of nodes and links, or it is a system of mode services. In the introduction section, the discussion focuses on the mode share. Please clarify
3. Introduction section: In lines 58-60, it is stated the aim of this study. I get confused since I found this study implies understanding what the stakeholder’s requirements regarding future mobility are based on the previous study since the title contains the term future mobility. Please clarify.
4. Introduction section: In lines 52-57, it is stated the motivation why this study is stated as important. Please describe in more detail the reasons or hypotheses of this study to support its importance. Please clarify as well, what you mean by “…requirements for the transportation network as a whole…”
5. Section 2.1: it was stated in lines 74-75 that “…was conducted within a 15-year time frame (2007-2022)….”, and lines 78-90 regarding the two search strategies. Please add more description regarding the reason for not including the term ‘future mobility and the relation with the idea regarding future mobility as stated in the title.
6. Section 2.1: it was stated in lines 100-101 that “…The second step consisted of assessing the full papers to see if they were relevant to this review…” Please describe the rule or protocol to assess the full paper. How the ‘relevant’ was assessed? Who did the assessment? How does the researcher make sure the consistency of assessment between papers and between readers (if more than one reader per paper or among papers)? Please clarify
7. Section 2.1 and 2.2: Is there any software in using for the analyses? Please explain in more detail. Please clarify how do you ensure the validity of the methodology used in this study.
8. Section 4: As I do not find any hypotheses in this article, it is difficult to follow the explanation provided in sections 4.1 up to 4.3. Please add more explanation of how this study answers the hypotheses or research questions. For example, I cannot understand how the Authors explain the idea of future mobility, while there is no keyword for future mobility used. Please clarify.
9. Section 4.4: I do not in agreement with the statement stated in lines 309-310. There are many articles that employed a similar methods. Moreover, this article did not contribute new findings or understanding regarding future mobility. Current study review how sustainability was defined by stakeholders. This study does not review how the stakeholders define or imagine what is future mobility, whether it is in-car technology, infrastructure, control, etc. Please clarify. A similar problem with lines 311-314 is that recognizing the relevant stakeholders is not an original work. Please clarify. Another problem I found is the background of the stakeholders, where the different geographical backgrounds of the stakeholders may imply different perceptions or requirements regarding future mobility. Thus, the geographical background may differentiate the findings. Please discuss.
10. Conclusion section: Please consider to re-write this section by referring to the research questions regarding what is future mobility, study limitation, and policy recommendation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this well written article on the stakeholder identification and analysis for transportation networks.
The key concern that I have with this manuscript, is that even though the introduction sets out an interesting objecitve, I cannot see how it is delievered by the remainder of the manuscript.
Firstly, the stakeholders identification is extremely simple, grouping large and diverse groups into a single group where needs and requirements may be vastly different. For instance, "citizens and commuters" is grouped into a single stakeholder, but fail to acknowledge that elderly, mobility-disabled, or children have vastly different needs and purpose for travel, for instance.
The paper provides a basic analysis of the reviewed literature and fails to provide usable outputs for other researchers. For example, 4.2 highlights some interconnectivity between the different dimensions but fail to define what parameters and constraints cause this interconnectivity. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which offers no new information to the reader, and just presents a simple power-point graphic with D1-D6.
Furthermore, the indicators identified are extremely broad, some of which are active areas of research with multiple metrics proposed. For example, social accessibility covers many types of "horizontal" and "vertical" equity policies based on different characteristics and paremeters of the users.
Also, while I agree MaaS covers the identified requirements, its proposal as a transportation design framework does not fall within the scope of the paper according to the aims and objectives outlined in Section 1.
I have also some reservations with the authors estimation of the novelty of the methodology. The proposed process for categorisation of research and identification of common themes and indicators is quite common in research.
As things stand, the manuscript provides at best an elementary analysis of existing research, with no new knowledge being put forward.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript in the last revision, but there are still several issues I would like to raise.
If the use of case grounded theory in this new domain is the main novelty identified by the authors, I would expect the grounded theory methodology to be reviewed first, highlighting its benefits and limitations, setting the expectations of the reader.
Furthermore, the authors should provide a more detailed description of the methodology, in particular on the coding mechanisms used. The current version only provides a single example of coding, however, there are 3 stages of coding involved yet the paper does not define how these are made. These are paramount as they have an effect on the final indicators found. Strangely, it seems to me that some of this information is provided in 4.1, the discussion.
The newly included statement: "the obtained results were reviewed by the authors of this research to guarantee their validity" is obviously problematic and suggests potential bias in the final results if the only validation mechanism is a review by the people responsible of setting up the coding mechanisms, which is a subjective endeavor.
I still think the analysis of the results is basic, and insufficiently insightful for the topic at hand. I recommend the authors the following paper as an example of the expected level of analysis:
Bindan Zeng & Yinchun He (2019) Factors influencing Chinese tourist flow in Japan – a grounded theory approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24:1, 56-69, DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2018.1541185
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
