Understanding Current and Future Transport Needs of Older Australian Drivers to Guide Development of Sustainable and Smart Initiatives to Support Safe Mobility of Older Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has a very interesting title and it promises to be interesting. His contribution to sustainable development could be significant. Unfortunately, from the scientific point of view, it is very poorly prepared and needs to be thoroughly revised, as suggested below. 1. There is no literature review section. This part of the article must be rewritten from scratch with references to many publications on smart solutions for older people and related problems. 2. Due to the lack of literature studies, the article does not indicate either a research gap or a clear contribution of research to the considerations so far. 3. 19 publications on this subject are definitely not enough. The authors also do not show a wider spectrum of international cases within the scope of the described issue. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic taken into account in the paper is very interesting, and very important especially today when we meet with aging societies in many countries around the world.  In the reviewed paper, the Authors presented the problem of the development of sustainable and smart initiatives to support the safe mobility of older adults in order to understand the current and future transport needs of older Australian drivers. In my opinion, the paper can be published, after taking into account the following remarks:

• it is recommended to add into section Keywords, keywords: road transport, sustainable transport development,
• at the end of the Introduction section, it is recommended to add the information what was contained in each paper section,
• the Authors in the Introduction section discuss the key findings which inform among others that the development of effective strategies and initiatives aligned with healthy aging and wellbeing targets, increased resilience and connectedness, and creation of healthier travel choices and healthier environments to promote acceptance and use of a range of transport options, and uptake of safer vehicles equipped within vehicle technologies is important in order to ultimately enhance the safe mobility of older road users. Moreover, the findings obtained by the Authors revealed high use of private vehicles, walking, and taxis, but little use of other travel modes (bicycle, motorcycle, rideshare, community services, and public transport) by older people. Age, gender, and residential location influenced the availability and potential use of some transport options. This is very good, but unfortunately, the Authors did not mention the infrastructure solutions that support the efficient functioning of public transport and can be successfully used by older drivers and at the same time contribute to the increase in the level of sustainable transport mobility, such as the systems used in many cities around the world, i.e. park and ride systems, which allow drivers to leave the vehicle on the park and ride parking located on the outskirts of the city and getting to the city center by public transport. It is a very good solution for older drivers. Authors should mention these popular solutions and refer to the latest scientific literature on the subject in this regard, i.e. "The use of a park and ride system a case study based on the City of Cracow (Poland)", doi 10.3390 / en13133473; "A P-Hub Location Problem for Determining Park-and-Ride Facility Locations with the Weibit-Based Choice Model", doi.org/10.3390/su13147928; "The analysis of the factors determining the choice of park and ride facility using a multinomial logit model", doi 10.3390 / en14010203. One short paragraph in the Introduction section will be enough,
• the construction of section 2 called "Materials and Methods" is not appropriate. This section is divided into many very short content subsections and sub-sub sections, e.g. sub-sub section "2.2.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics" consist only of one sentence. The Authors should or develop the content of each subsection and each sub-sub section or divide the content of section 2 in another way,
• in section 2 called "Materials and Methods" there is a lack of information about methods used in order to analyze the data obtained from the survey. It should be added,
• it is recommended to add to section 2 "Materials and Methods" a figure showing the individual thematic areas included in the survey form. It is true that it is described in the text of the article, but such a scheme would constitute a summary of the form of the survey form, which would make it easier for the reader to get to know the form of the survey form,
• whether the number 704 meet the statistical condition for the minimum number of data to perform the statistical analysis?
• in Table 3 we can find "*", but there is a lack of explanation of the meaning of "*". It should be added,
• there is a lack of a "Conclusions" section, but inside the "Discussion" section, we can find a subsection called "4.1. Implications of Findings and Further Research", I think that the content of this subsection 4.1. is suitable for conclusions, so, it is recommended to change the title of this subsection 4.1. into Conclusion (it will be section 5).

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has some grammatical and formatting errors.
It is necessary to underline the novelty of the research in the introductory part and the limitations in the concluding part.
Is the methodology adopted replicable in other contexts? 
It is necessary to provide more specifics about the implementation and administration of the questionnaire.
It is necessary to revise the title by focusing it better on the topic discussed.
It is necessary to include more discussion on the concept of accessibility in the introductory part, considering the possibility of applying participatory planning for better inclusive urbanism, taking into account different types of pedestrian variables. 
 Therefore we recommend reading the following research works
1)Gálvez-Pérez, D., Guirao, B., & Ortuño, A. (2021). Road safety of elderly pedestrians in the urban context: an approach based on infrastructure and socioeconomic variables. Transportation research procedure, 58, 254-261.
2) Campisi, T., Mrak, I., Errigo, M. F., & Tesoriere, G. (2021, March). Participatory planning for better inclusive urbanism: Some consideration about infrastructural obstacles for people with different motor abilities. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2343, No. 1, p. 090006). AIP Publishing LLC.

In the introductory wall it is necessary to explain how planning instruments (e.g. SUMP) can help to achieve greater safety and sustainability.
A paragraph on mobility changes before and after the pandemic is also recommended.
Probably the inclusion of a flow chart in the introductory part could facilitate the understanding of research steps and novelty.
It is recommended to better specify the choice of parameters analysed. 

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the improvements. The aricle could be published in present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, and agreement that all initial comments have been addressed and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The text still has some grammatical errors and typos.
It is necessary to insert all images in high resolution and to enlarge pictures 1 and 2 for easier reading. The caption of figure 2 needs to be inserted. 
Once these parts have been corrected, the manuscript will be eligible for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for the additional comments. The manuscript has been proof read and all grammatical errors have been corrected. We have also replaced Figures 1 and 2 with larger images of higher resolution.