Measuring the Effect of Built Environment on Students’ School Trip Method Using Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I found the topic of your manuscript very interesting and applicative.

In order to improve your manuscript I would like to address several issues to be solved:

Line 102... please indicate what do you consider as an active

Line 127-133... This paragraph is hard understandable. Please re-organize it to be more clear. It is very unclear as you mentioned several times ''scoring'', so it hard to understand the complete process. Especially because you wrote ''This scoring was determined based on the approximate human density per unit area in each type of house.'' It is unclear how did you connect scoring and human density data, there are no data or map, just the statement. Also, you wrote ''The points of the abovementioned questions for the six questions were equal to 1, 12, 10, 25, 50 and 75 respectively.'' Are these number results, or what kind of points these numbers represents?

It is also unclear (or not well explained), what did you do with all the scores you calculated within this 8 factors. Where and how did you use it?

Line 130... there is typing mistake calculatedceri[37].

Line 317-318... ''...in the variety of uses of buildings on the way to and from school...'' This is very unclear. How do you mean uses of buildings on the way to and from school? Make it understandable.

Line 326-328... ''nine times'' - more, less, higher, lower...?

In the conclusion section please specify applicative aspect of your research (e.g. urban planning, transport planning...). How and where your research could be applied.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences constructions should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We found the comments very valuable and have incorporated them within the revised manuscript. Revisions are highlighted via track changes in the revised manuscript. Supplementary file has been uploaded to further elucidate our responses to the comments.

Thanks and regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well written. The topic it discusses is of great interest to readership. I have some commnets that might help in developing this study. 

1- There is no need to abbreviate a manuscript title. It would be better to remove (NEWS) from this item and keep the full wording. The authors can add the abbreviation in the first mention of the abbreviation in the text. 

2- The introduction need to be revised and structured. 1. The introduction needs to be rewritten showing the research problem, the question, and the gap in the literature. The method used in conducting the proposed index should also be discussed briefly in the interdiction. In the same context, there is no need to add pullet points to the aspects. They should be added as paragraphs. In the introduction the added value of having this index should be mentioned.  

3- To ensure the completeness of a research study, it is essential to give questions and a future outlook based on the research limitations of the study in its conclusion. One way to do this is by suggesting areas for future research that could build upon the existing findings and provide additional insights. This approach demonstrates that the research's limitations do not undermine its overall value and can be used as a stepping stone to further expand the knowledge in the area. Therefore, it is crucial for any researcher to consider their study's limitations carefully and offer suggestions for future research that could address these limitations and continue to advance the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We found the comments very valuable and have incorporated them within the revised manuscript. Revisions are highlighted via track changes in the revised manuscript. Supplementary file has been uploaded to further elucidate our responses to the comments.

Thanks and regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much to the authors for the opportunity to review the text they have prepared. I consider the entire study to be well-thought-out and properly conducted. While the key findings of the study presented in the abstract, "It was found that the variables of land use mix-diversity, land use mix-access, crime, age, gender, household income, and car ownership had a significant effect on students' school trips. The more easily students have access to different places, the less they use public services and cars as compared to the active travel mode. The use of public services and cars increases with the increase in crime rate along the route to school," may not be groundbreaking, they can certainly be considered worthy of publication.

Below, I present a few suggestions that, in my opinion, could contribute to the improvement of the presented text:

The research objective is stated as follows: "This study aims to investigate the impact of the built environment on students' school trips comprehensively and systematically by adapting and expanding the NEWS questionnaire. Additionally, the study assesses the influence of various factors such as students' age, gender, household income, and car ownership." While the objective is appropriately articulated, the specific aspects related to school trips remain somewhat ambiguous. It is not entirely clear whether the focus is on examining the influence of the built environment on the mode of travel, travel duration, perceived comfort during transportation, or other factors such as the decision to commute or opt for remote learning. Clarifying these aspects would enhance the overall clarity of the research objective.

In addition to the research objective (study aim), it would be valuable to incorporate research questions into the text. Well-formulated research questions would enable the reader to gain a more detailed understanding of the knowledge they can acquire by examining the entire article. Furthermore, in the process of formulating research questions, the authors themselves would have the opportunity to reconsider what specific information they want to convey to the readers and identify any gaps in the existing knowledge on the researched topic.

In the text, we read, "The amount of household income has also had a significant effect on the student’s trip. [...]. The last variable which had a significant effect on this ratio was the car ownership variable." It would be worthwhile for the authors to investigate whether there is multicollinearity between income and the ownership of a personal car among the explanatory variables (and consequently, all its implications).

I suggest to the authors to review the entire text for clarity. For example, based on the sentence: "Apart from the above-mentioned three factors, another factor that could have a greater effect on the students' school trip is the built environment," it is difficult to determine whether the three factors mentioned are children and family's characteristics, parental concerns, social and economic factors, or perhaps household income, car ownership, and flexibility of parents' work schedule.

Best regards, and I wish you many fruitful research endeavors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We found the comments very valuable and have incorporated them within the revised manuscript. Revisions are highlighted via track changes in the revised manuscript. Supplementary file has been uploaded to further elucidate our responses to the comments.

Thanks and regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After re-reviewing your manuscript, I have found that it has been improved and is suitable for publication.

All the best

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for the valuable time you spent reviewing our manuscript. We found the comments valuable and incorporated them in the revised manuscript. Revisions are highlighted via track changes in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1:

[Comment] Dear Authors,

After re-reviewing your manuscript, I have found that it has been improved and is suitable for publication.

All the best

[Response] Thank you for your feedback and for recommending our work suitable for publication. We have received some comments from the editor, which we have addressed in this minor revision. It includes updating the abstract and introduction section to put more emphasis on the role of active transport for sustainability and elaborating on relevant literature that provides insights on school travel and sustainability. The relevant changes can be seen via track changes in the revised manuscript.