Pedestrians’ Perceptions of Motorized Traffic in Suburban–Rural Areas of a Metropolitan Region: Exploring Measurement Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article, which is well written with a slid research design and delivery. However, the research is not well placed in the body of knowledge available.

The article rightly highlights that from the 1950s, planning focused on cars as a primary mode of transport. However, the authors fail to highlight that since the 1980s/90s, urban planning has worked with re-urbanism of urban areas with a focus on enabling walking and cycling. At the same time, research in urban design has for the last 30 years focused on creating a knowledge base for this. This evolution is not established and should be add to the introduce.

This would also help in positioning the conceptual model, which in many ways is similar to a number discussed in urban and transport planning.

A literature review is not needed but the work should be placed within this field. The introduction also places much emphasis on different methods, which seems out of context and does not add to the article. This could be reduced.

The results and discussion are interesting, however, it is hard to understand how this information can be used to create better places. Here, again, the authors would benefit from placing their results as evidence for the field of health and urban planning. Especially as it is the field of urban and transport planning that influence the relationship between people and cars in the physical environment.

Consideration should be given to existing Swedish research from LTU, LTH, RISE, TRV etc in the Swedish context, and more general planning research from UCL, and Prof. M. Carmona.

Making these connections will add relevance to the work.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer 1!

Many thanks for your positive evaluation!

Please note our responses following three asterisks: ***

The changes in our revised manuscript can be followed through “marked text in yellow”, along with page and line numbers.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article, which is well written with a slid research design and delivery. However, the research is not well placed in the body of knowledge available.

*** Many thanks for your positive evaluation! We will comment on our manuscript in relation to the overall body of knowledge below.

The article rightly highlights that from the 1950s, planning focused on cars as a primary mode of transport. However, the authors fail to highlight that since the 1980s/90s, urban planning has worked with re-urbanism of urban areas with a focus on enabling walking and cycling. At the same time, research in urban design has for the last 30 years focused on creating a knowledge base for this. This evolution is not established and should be add to the introduce.

This would also help in positioning the conceptual model, which in many ways is similar to a number discussed in urban and transport planning.

*** This is already a lengthy and somewhat complex text. We are aware of the progress in urban design that has occurred in later decades. However, that is not in our focus. Rather, our exploratory study focuses entirely on the traffic variables, aiming to understand them in their own right, as well as in relation to the context in which our measurements were undertaken. However, in our next study, we will have a wider approach.

A literature review is not needed but the work should be placed within this field. The introduction also places much emphasis on different methods, which seems out of context and does not add to the article. This could be reduced.

*** The studied field is of interest for several different both research and professional fields. We have developed our perspectives in light of the evolution of the field of physical activity and health, and have, for that purpose, refined our research strategies and methods. Our focus is therefore on some of the more commonly used methods in that subdiscipline. At the same time, we developed our methods using both scales and statistical methods, informed by our understanding of the larger field.

The results and discussion are interesting, however, it is hard to understand how this information can be used to create better places. Here, again, the authors would benefit from placing their results as evidence for the field of health and urban planning. Especially as it is the field of urban and transport planning that influence the relationship between people and cars in the physical environment.

Consideration should be given to existing Swedish research from LTU, LTH, RISE, TRV etc in the Swedish context, and more general planning research from UCL, and Prof. M. Carmona.

Making these connections will add relevance to the work.

*** Our focus is on establishing a solid foundation of basic knowledge. We plan to address its application to, for example, “creating better places” in more general terms in our next study, in which we will include additional variables that are likely to be important for defining “better places”, such as greenery and aesthetics.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well written. The figures are high quality and contribute greatly to the comprehension and dynamism of the article. The question is important

The abstract is very well constructed, self-supporting, it accurately reflects the content of the article, and the conclusions are specific, aligned with the results, and not vague.

The introduction clearly sets out the subject and explains that noise is not only a nuisance but a real health hazard.

The list of references is perfect in its form.

I have some questions and suggestions to bonify the discussion.

• Can you explain why such a low percentage of males responded to the survey?
• I suggest keeping only the tables that highlight the significant results to make the article easier to read.
• It would be useful to include information of the context of the Swedish car park showing the percentage of diesel cars in Sweden (impact on odor) and the percentage of electric cars (impact on noise). Indeed, Sweden has a very high percentage of electric vehicles, with ‘’…51.6% of all new passenger cars being plug-in vehicles.’’ https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/general-information/news/swedens-ev-market-january-2025-144-yoy-increase As an example, a 50% share of EVs at speeds under 50 km/h was able to reduce ‘’traffic noise by approximately ,75dB during daytime. Halucha M., J. Bohatkiewicz, P. Mioduszewski. Modeling the effect of electric vehicles on noise levels in the vicinity of rural road sections. Archives of Civil Engineering, 69 (2023), pp. 573-586, 10.24425/ace.2023.146098

 

• Page 22: ‘’Nonetheless, with respect to road safety, speed management should be prioritized. In accordance with that, a campaign initiated by the United Nations (UN) has been launched to limit the speed in urban areas to 30 km/h (WHO, 2022, p. 60).’’ The 30 km/h speed limit is recognized as being safe in urban areas, However, as the study refers to rural and semi-rural areas, is 30 km/h a realistic and applicable speed limit in these areas? Wouldn't it be more common to find speeds between 50-80 km/h in the areas studied?
• In terms of noise, other references suggested that 40 km/h is the recognized threshold at which friction and air resistance become significant, even for electric cars and not 30 km/h. At 80 km/h (likely to be found in rural roads in Sweden?), it seems that even for electric vehicles, noise due to air resistance is the main contributor to noise overshadowing friction (Yang, M., Sun, Z., Hu, S., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Numerical investigation on the characteristics of underbody aerodynamic noise sources in electric vehicles. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2756(1), 012012).
• In a Danish paper, tranquility emerged as a major factor in the appeal of walking. Could this notion be equated with the disturbances associated with noise (inversely proportional)? Christiansen, L. B., Klein-Wengel, T. T., Koch, S., Høyer-Kruse, J., & Schipperijn, J. (2023). Recreational walking and perceived environmental qualities: a national map-based survey in Denmark. International Journal of Health Geographics, 22(1), 21.
• In other studies, about rural walking, factors like the absence of attractive scenery or the lack of infrastructures facilitating walking, as parks, sidewalks and safe street systems were linked to lower walking in rural populations, particularly women. Can you discuss why these factors did not emerge? (Berry, N., Coffee, N., Nolan, R., Dollman, J., & Sugiyama, T. (2017). Neighbourhood environmental attributes associated with walking in South Australian adults: differences between urban and rural areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(9), 965. ; Li, C., Chi, G., & Jackson, R. (2017). Neighbourhood built environment and walking behaviours: evidence from the rural American South. Indoor and Built Environment, 27(7), 938-952.).
• To what extent are your results generalizable to other countries?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2!

Many thanks for your positive evaluation!

Please note our responses following three asterisks: ***

The changes in our revised manuscript can be followed through “marked text in yellow”, along with page and line numbers.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very well written. The figures are high quality and contribute greatly to the comprehension and dynamism of the article. The question is important

*** Many thanks for your positive evaluation

The abstract is very well constructed, self-supporting, it accurately reflects the content of the article, and the conclusions are specific, aligned with the results, and not vague.

The introduction clearly sets out the subject and explains that noise is not only a nuisance but a real health hazard.

The list of references is perfect in its form.

I have some questions and suggestions to bonify the discussion.

• Can you explain why such a low percentage of males responded to the survey?

 *** That men tend to respond to a lower degree in all sorts of questionnaires is a general phenomenon. It is unclear whether females are also more common among walking commuters.

I suggest keeping only the tables that highlight the significant results to make the article easier to read.

*** Thanks for your suggestion. However, we think it is important to present both non-significant and significant results. 

• It would be useful to include information of the context of the Swedish car park showing the percentage of diesel cars in Sweden (impact on odor) and the percentage of electric cars (impact on noise). Indeed, Sweden has a very high percentage of electric vehicles, with ‘’…51.6% of all new passenger cars being plug-in vehicles.’’ https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/general-information/news/swedens-ev-market-january-2025-144-yoy-increase As an example, a 50% share of EVs at speeds under 50 km/h was able to reduce ‘’traffic noise by approximately ,75dB during daytime. Halucha M., J. Bohatkiewicz, P. Mioduszewski. Modeling the effect of electric vehicles on noise levels in the vicinity of rural road sections. Archives of Civil Engineering, 69 (2023), pp. 573-586, 10.24425/ace.2023.146098

• *** Good point. However, the exact vehicle composition remains unknown. Contextual information on the proportion of diesel and electric vehicles in Sweden could aid in interpreting potential odor and noise conditions. At the time of data collection, electric vehicles were very few, if present at all. We have clarified this in the Methods section, see p 7, lines 202-3.

 

• Page 22: ‘’Nonetheless, with respect to road safety, speed management should be prioritized. In accordance with that, a campaign initiated by the United Nations (UN) has been launched to limit the speed in urban areas to 30 km/h (WHO, 2022, p. 60).’’ The 30 km/h speed limit is recognized as being safe in urban areas, However, as the study refers to rural and semi-rural areas, is 30 km/h a realistic and applicable speed limit in these areas? Wouldn't it be more common to find speeds between 50-80 km/h in the areas studied?

*** That is a reasonable assumption, although the ratings in Table 10 indicate lower values for both speeds and flows in the suburban area vs the inner urban area. Still, we suggest that in more densely populated areas, it is unreasonable to accept the disturbance of noise from motorized traffic. Thus, implementing the 30 km/h speed limit is also reasonable in at least less-populated suburban areas.   

 

• In terms of noise, other references suggested that 40 km/h is the recognized threshold at which friction and air resistance become significant, even for electric cars and not 30 km/h. At 80 km/h (likely to be found in rural roads in Sweden?), it seems that even for electric vehicles, noise due to air resistance is the main contributor to noise overshadowing friction (Yang, M., Sun, Z., Hu, S., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Numerical investigation on the characteristics of underbody aerodynamic noise sources in electric vehicles. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2756(1), 012012).

• *** Thank you for this comment. While 80 km/h is not unusual on rural roads in Sweden, our study area also included lower-speed and speed-regulated sections. We wish to emphasize that we are interested in external noise, not cabin noise. Although aerodynamic noise increases with speed, tyre noise and other sources continue to make important contributions, so it would be an oversimplification to suggest that air resistance is the main contributor. According to Halucha, Bohatkiewicz & Mioduszewski (2023), “The rolling tyres are the main noise sources of electric and hybrid vehicles for all driving speeds, including low speeds when these cars are driven by the electric motor.”

 

• In a Danish paper, tranquility emerged as a major factor in the appeal of walking. Could this notion be equated with the disturbances associated with noise (inversely proportional)? Christiansen, L. B., Klein-Wengel, T. T., Koch, S., Høyer-Kruse, J., & Schipperijn, J. (2023). Recreational walking and perceived environmental qualities: a national map-based survey in Denmark. International Journal of Health Geographics, 22(1), 21.
• *** We agree. Tranquillity can indeed be considered as the inverse of environmental disturbances such as noise. Reducing noise is therefore likely to increase the perceived tranquillity of an area, enhancing its appeal for walking. Still we are hesitant in adding the suggested ms, since we already have one from US that deals with recreational conditions. Rather we think it is important to stress that different context can demand very different environmental settings. See also our comments below.
• In other studies, about rural walking, factors like the absence of attractive scenery or the lack of infrastructures facilitating walking, as parks, sidewalks and safe street systems were linked to lower walking in rural populations, particularly women. Can you discuss why these factors did not emerge? (Berry, N., Coffee, N., Nolan, R., Dollman, J., & Sugiyama, T. (2017). Neighbourhood environmental attributes associated with walking in South Australian adults: differences between urban and rural areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(9), 965. ; Li, C., Chi, G., & Jackson, R. (2017). Neighbourhood built environment and walking behaviours: evidence from the rural American South. Indoor and Built Environment, 27(7), 938-952.).
• *** Thank you for highlighting these important studies. We now refer to Berry et al. (2017), se p. 4, line124
• To what extent are your results generalizable to other countries?
• *** That is a good question, but difficult to really respond to. However, they are most likely generalizable under comparable conditions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    This study investigates how pedestrians in suburban-rural parts of Greater Stockholm perceive motorized traffic variables, namely vehicle speed, flow, noise, and exhaust fumes, and how these perceptions affect their appraisal of walking environments.
2.    The recruitment through newspaper advertisements may bias the sample. Please discuss this limitation and its effect on external validity, or apply weighting adjustments.
3.    With 82% female participants, the results may not generalize to the full population. The authors should consider testing whether the results hold across genders using interaction or stratified analyses.
4.    Data were collected across several months. Weather and seasonal differences may affect perceived noise and comfort. Please specify how these were controlled or acknowledge the limitation.
5.    The study relies solely on self-reported perceptions. The authors are encouraged to including or referencing actual noise levels, speed data, or air quality indicators would strengthen ecological validity.
6.    Although VIF values were examined, very high correlations indicate conceptual overlap. The authors are encouraged to consider using principal component analysis or latent variable modeling to mitigate redundancy.
7.    The manuscript states that extreme or missing trip data were replaced by mean values but gives no rationale. It is recommended to describe the imputation rule and its impact on estimates.
8.    The study tests only direct relationships. The authors are encouraged to examine potential interaction effects (e.g., speed × flow) that could produce nonlinear perception patterns.
9.    The link between environmental perception and health outcomes is vaguely stated. Please clarify the behavioral or physiological pathways linking noise and walking deterrence.
10.    Conclusions such as “reducing vehicle speed improves walking experience” are intuitive. It is suggested to provide concrete interventions (e.g., buffer zones, low-speed areas).
11.    Many figures are reused from earlier works. It is suggested to merge or redesign to present a unified conceptual model for this paper.
12.    References rely heavily on the authors’ own prior studies. The authors should broaden the literature base with international and cross-cultural pedestrian studies.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Dear Reviewer 4!

Many thanks for your positive evaluation!

Please note our responses following three asterisks: ***

The changes in our revised manuscript can be followed through “marked text in yellow”, along with page and line numbers.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This study investigates how pedestrians in suburban-rural parts of Greater Stockholm perceive motorized traffic variables, namely vehicle speed, flow, noise, and exhaust fumes, and how these perceptions affect their appraisal of walking environments.
2. The recruitment through newspaper advertisements may bias the sample. Please discuss this limitation and its effect on external validity, or apply weighting adjustments.

*** We acknowledge that a general limitation of our study is that participants were recruited through newspaper advertisements rather than randomly. This approach may increase the risk of self-selection bias, as individuals with higher education or socioeconomic status may be more likely to subscribe to newspapers and respond to surveys. Moreover, those with a personal interest in the study topic are more likely to participate, which could affect the representativeness of the sample. At the same time, we refer to a previous study from our research group comparing a field-recruited sample with the advertisement-recruited one, indicating no difference in results, see p 7, lines 195-199.

3.    With 82% female participants, the results may not generalize to the full population. The authors should consider testing whether the results hold across genders using interaction or stratified analyses.

*** This issue is relevant, and could be further discussed in relation to the age distribution and its representativeness. By including it in the statistical analyses as background variables, we have addressed it in some ways. But we agree that this issue can be studied in more depth in future studies.

4. Data were collected across several months. Weather and seasonal differences may affect perceived noise and comfort. Please specify how these were controlled or acknowledge the limitation.

*** “Data were collected from May through mid-autumn, covering the period of longer daylight and generally favourable weather. Respondents were asked to report their overall impressions over the past two weeks, which helps account for short-term variability in weather and other conditions. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that seasonal and weather-related differences may still have influenced perceptions of the variables under investigation. See added text re these issues at p. 7, line 200-203.

5. The study relies solely on self-reported perceptions. The authors are encouraged to including or referencing actual noise levels, speed data, or air quality indicators would strengthen ecological validity.

*** This is a very relevant comment; however, the spread-out distribution of the walked paths to work is immense, and hinders that ambition. We suggest that future studies should focus on such aspects.

6.    Although VIF values were examined, very high correlations indicate conceptual overlap. The authors are encouraged to consider using principal component analysis or latent variable modeling to mitigate redundancy.

*** We agree with you that this is a tricky dimension in our study, and it is difficult to circumvent. We have therefore considered, in future studies, reexamining some of the same matters using experimental strategies.

7.    The manuscript states that extreme or missing trip data were replaced by mean values, but gives no rationale. It is recommended to describe the imputation rule and its impact on estimates.

*** Good comment. Thanks! We have now included the following text on that at page 8 lines 220-224: “Among the 165 participants, annual walking-commuting trips ranged from 6.50 to 546. Five extreme values were replaced using simple mean imputation based on the remaining 160 cases, preserving the sample size while reducing variance. Missing data in at least one of the 12 months led to exclusion from the sum score. This variable was used only for the descriptive statistics.”

8.    The study tests only direct relationships. The authors are encouraged to examine potential interaction effects (e.g., speed × flow) that could produce nonlinear perception patterns.

*** This has been done in the mediation analyses when stating “composite variables” in Table 9 as predictors for two analyses. However, and yes, the analyses include only linear perception patterns. We agree with you on furthering these matters as you suggest. However, that will be considered in future studies.  

9. 
   The link between environmental perception and health outcomes is vaguely stated. Please clarify the behavioral or physiological pathways linking noise and walking deterrence.

*** We present a few studies suggesting a relationship between noise and walking deterrence. Across studies from the U.S., Germany, Spain, and Chile, noise has been identified as an unpleasant environmental stimulus that reduces the quality of the walking experience. Physiologically, noise can increase stress and arousal, while behaviorally, it can cause discomfort and avoidance, deterring people from walking or prompting them to select alternative routes.

Note also our text on this matter on p. 21, l. 537-544. We do not think that we can further it at this point.

 

10.  Conclusions such as “reducing vehicle speed improves walking experience” are intuitive. It is suggested to provide concrete interventions (e.g., buffer zones, low-speed areas).

*** Given that, as stated above, there are studies indicating that noise deters walking, “reducing vehicle speed improves walking experience” is not intuitive, but coupled to the role of speed in producing noise.

11. Many figures are reused from earlier works. It is suggested to merge or redesign to present a unified conceptual model for this paper.

*** Yes, many figures are reused from earlier work. However, there is a rationale for that in that we want to create a basis for comparing this study with our previous study of the same variables in the inner urban area of the same metropolitan area (see ref. Andersson et al. 2023a in this study).

12. 
       References rely heavily on the authors’ own prior studies. The authors should broaden the literature base with international and cross-cultural pedestrian studies.

*** In principle, we agree. However, the manuscript is already long. We are therefore hesitant to widen the discussion in this context. Rather, this can be the objective in a future review.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues raised have been addressed. I have no further comments.