Sustainable Innovative Mobility Solutions Preferred by Inhabitants of Rural Areas—The Case of Lithuania and Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are several spelling mistakes and typing errors in the text.
The objectives of the research should be more precisely clarified in the introduction.
First part of the chapter 1.1. is mosaic-like – the terms of social exclusion and the quality of life should be more coherently phrased. The causes of poor transport accessibility are even more complex than it was described in the same chapter.
The public transport supply and the financial-economic issues of transportation are absolutely neglected in the paper.
The introduction of the research areas is rather incomplete, description is required about the structure of settlements, the number and decomposition of the inhabitants (age groups, social status), the economic conditions, the transport facilities etc.
The terms of rural areas and peripheral areas tend to be used as synonyms within the text, however these definitions merely partly overlap each other. Similarly, the terms related to ‘smartness’ are often labelled as ‘sustainable’ at the same time. Authors should more accurately and adequately use these terms and definitions.
The presented outputs are dominantly confirmed the previous statements and results of the literature. Authors should emphasize those characteristics which might be important and novel contribution to the existed international findings (e.g. the issues of electric bikes).
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1
Cover letter to Reviwers
Thank you very much for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Sustainable innovative mobility solutions prefered by rural areas inhabitants (sustainability-1683040). We are pleased to respond to your comments and suggestions and believe that this is an excellent opportunity to improve our manuscript and do our best to meet the high standards of Sustainability. All observations, suggestions and comments raised by the editor and the reviewers were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our manuscript and have had a great influence not only on our current manuscript but also our future investigations. We thank you very much for the time you spent on the first version of this paper and we hope you will be satisfied with the changes we have made. The changes have been included in the revised paper and their justification appears below.
Authors
Point 1.There are several spelling mistakes and typing errors in the text.
Response 1.The article has been revised by an English language expert
Point 2.The objectives of the research should be more precisely clarified in the introduction.
Response 2. Following the Referee’s comment, we have made the objectives more detailed in the introduction and abstract and it was given as follows: This study aims to identify the specifics of the innovative mobility solutions expected by rural region inhabitants based on the example of selected regions in Lithuania and Poland.
Point 3.First part of the chapter 1.1. is mosaic-like – the terms of social exclusion and the quality of life should be more coherently phrased. The causes of poor transport accessibility are even more complex than it was described in the same chapter.
Response 3.Thank you for pointing out these important issues; they have been addressed in the text. The definitions of social exclusion and quality of life have been phrased more coherently and supported by the literature. We have added information on the complexity of the topic of transport accessibility which can be analysed in numerous aspects, namely inregional (micro and macro), technological, cultural, social (e.g. in terms of social exclusion), financial, defence, political (as a tool of state policy) and environmental contexts.
Point 4.The public transport supply and the financial-economic issues of transportation are absolutely neglected in the paper.
Response 4.Thank you for this comment. We share youropinionthat there is a need to discuss problems related to the functioning of public transport.We, therefore, address this topic in anotherpaper which we are currently preparing for publication. The financial aspect of the implemented innovations was not the subject matter of our study because both the study and the project assumed that the innovation would be coordinated and financed by the local government.
Point 5.The introduction of the research areas is rather incomplete, description is required about the structure of settlements, the number and decomposition of the inhabitants (age groups, social status), the economic conditions, the transport facilities etc
Response 5.Responding tothe Referee’s comment, we would like to notethatthe conducted study did not take into account more in-depthcharacteristics of the inhabitantsthan was presented in the paper.
.
Point 6.The terms of rural areas and peripheral areas tend to be used as synonyms within the text, however these definitions merely partly overlap each other. Similarly, the terms related to ‘smartness’ are often labelled as ‘sustainable’ at the same time. Authors should more accurately and adequately use these terms and definitions.
Response 6.Thank you for the comment. We agree with you on this issueand we limited the the terms used to the onesthat are the most appropriate in our opinion, namely “rural areas” and “sustainable”.Although the analysed areas arepredominantly rural and both regions should be defined as peripheral (obviously without suggesting that the meaning of these two terms is identical), we have focussed on rural areas to make the content more coherent.
Point 7.The presented outputs are dominantly confirmed the previous statements and results of the literature. Authors should emphasize those characteristics which might be important and novel contribution to the existed international findings (e.g. the issues of electric bikes)
Response 7.In line withthe Referee’s comment, we added astatement to indicate the originality and the scientific value as shown in the Introduction.
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the high level of originality, the text has flaws that must be addressed before proceeding. Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled Sustainable innovative mobility solutions prefered by rural areas inhabitants (sustainability-1683040). We are pleased to respond to your comments and suggestions and believe that this is an excellent opportunity to improve our manuscript and do our best to meet the high standards of Sustainability. All observations, suggestions and comments raised by the editor and the reviewers were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our manuscript and have had a great influence not only on our current manuscript but also our future investigations. We thank you very much for the time you spent on the first version of this paper and we hope you will be satisfied with the changes we have made. The changes have been included in the revised paper and their justification appears below.
Authors
Response 1. We appreciate this comment and have supplemented the title of the article accordingly.
Response 2. The text has been submitted for proofreading by a professional linguist as suggested by the Referee.
Response 3. The idea is among the new concepts in the literature and is explained in the text. The use of quotation marks is the same as in the quoted publication.
Response 4. Thank you for commenting on the formulation of the study aim, we have made it more precise.
Response 5. Following the Referee’s comment, we have added a statement to indicate the originality and the scientific value as shown in the Introduction. We have also supplemented the reference list which allowed us to describe the research gap more precisely. Additionally, we have formulated research questions which we have added in the Introduction.
Response 6. Following the Referee’s suggestion, we have changed the structure of the article. A chapter entitled “Background” has been added.
Response 7. Following the Referee’s comment, we have separated individual publications from the reference list by adding relevant discussion. Additionally, we have extended the literature by adding recent publications in English.
Response 8. The suggested research questions have been added to the Introduction.
Response 9. The size of the research sample has been calculated using a sample size calculator.
Response 10. Following the Referee’s comment we would like to note that the conducted study did not take into account more in-depth characteristics of the inhabitants than was presented in the paper.
Response 11. We have discussed the Reviewer’s suggestion to present the proposed solutions in a table. However, it seems to us that a single-column table(possibly a two-column one if numeration is included) would not be a better form of presentation than the one we originally used (bullet points).
Response 12. We appreciate this invaluable suggestion to use new research tools and we will be happy to use them in the continuation of our research and its presentation
Response 13. One has to agree with the remark that the presented pictures may seem rather monotonous. Nevertheless, having discussed the issue we concluded that the original form is more comprehensible for the readers. However, in the future, we will gladly act on the suggestion to aggregate the data.
Response 14.We do appreciate your advice to use new research tools, which we will be happy to use in the continuation of our research and its presentation.
Response 15. Thank you for your suggestion.Nonetheless, having discussed the issue we concluded that we would not change pictures to a table. In this way, we will keep the line of argumentation consistent with the form of presentation.
Response 16. Thanks for this comment. We agree that the captions under Figures 13-18 are too long, but the shortened text does not explain the problem, therefore we propose such solution
Response 17. We very much appreciate your positive opinion concerning our work and your invaluable suggestion to use new research tools. We will be glad to use them!
Response 18. As suggested by the Reviewer, we have added 11 recent publications to the reference list. We have focused exclusively on those in the English language while selecting publications that are the most relevant to the subject discussed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has some grammatical and formatting errors (some parts of the text have different fonts).
It is necessary to underline in the introductory part the novelty of the research; furthermore it is advisable to extend the literature concerning the possible mobility solutions in rural areas, i.e. in those areas with low demand, considering other forms of mobility such as DRT transport. reading the following research works:
1)Poltimäe, H., Rehema, M., Raun, J., & Poom, A. (2022). In search of sustainable and inclusive mobility solutions for rural areas. European transport research review, 14(1), 1-17.
2)Campisi, T., Canale, A., Ticali, D., & Tesoriere, G. (2021, March). Innovative solutions for sustainable mobility in areas of weak demand. Some factors influencing the implementation of the DRT system in Enna (Italy). In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2343, No. 1, p. 090005). AIP Publishing LLC.
3)Sörensen, L., Bossert, A., Jokinen, J. P., & Schlüter, J. (2021). How much flexibility does rural public transport need?–Implications from a fully flexible DRT system. Transport Policy, 100, 5-20.
From line 208 to line 222 it is probably more understandable to introduce a figure or graph instead of a list (to which add in case the bulleted list)
It is necessary to insert a greater description concerning the administration and the temporality of the survey carried out
It is necessary to include a greater explanation accompanying figure 12 and a reformulation of the legend accompanying the proposed graph as well as for figures 13 and 14
It is advisable to insert a paragraph or sentences that take into account the pandemic developments and how the pandemic has changed or influenced the mobility choices of the areas examined.
It is considered appropriate to describe in the final part the limitations of the research, to justify the case studies examined in the text and to insert the future investigation steps.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled Sustainable innovative mobility solutions prefered by rural areas inhabitants (sustainability-1683040). We are pleased to respond to your comments and suggestions and believe that this is an excellent opportunity to improve our manuscript and do our best to meet the high standards of Sustainability. All observations, suggestions and comments raised by the editor and the reviewers were valuable and helpful in revising and improving our manuscript and have had a great influence not only on our current manuscript but also our future investigations. We thank you very much for the time you spent on the first version of this paper and we hope you will be satisfied with the changes we have made. The changes have been included in the revised paper and their justification appears below.
Authors
Point 1.The manuscript has some grammatical and formatting errors (some parts of the text have different fonts).
It is necessary to underline in the introductory part the novelty of the research; furthermore it is advisable to extend the literature concerning the possible mobility solutions in rural areas, i.e. in those areas with low demand, considering other forms of mobility such as DRT transport. reading the following research works: 1), 2), 3).
Response 1.Thank you for the comments.The article has been revised by an English language expert. Thanks for the comments and very interesting literature suggestions. We agree with you on this point. Following the Referee’s comment, we added a statement to indicate the novelty and the scientific value as shown in the Introduction.
Point 2.From line 208 to line 222 it is probably more understandable to introduce a figure or graph instead of a list (to which add in case the bulleted list)
Response 2. Following the Referee’s comment, we have discussed this suggestion. However, it seems to us that a single-column table (possibly a two-column one if numeration is included) would not be a better form of presentation than the one we originally used (bullet points).
Point 3.It is necessary to insert a greater description concerning the administration and the temporality of the survey carried out
Response 3. Following the Referee’s comment, we have supplemented the information concerning the administration and the temporality of the survey in the chapter “Materials and Methods”
Point 4.It is necessary to include a greater explanation accompanying figure 12 and a reformulation of the legend accompanying the proposed graph as well as for figures 13 and 14
Response 4.Figure 12 is described more extensively and the legends accompanying Figures 13 and 14 were reformulated.
Point 5.It is advisable to insert a paragraph or sentences that take into account the pandemic developments and how the pandemic has changed or influenced the mobility choices of the areas examined.
Response 5. We agree with the Reviewer’s point. We only discuss the development of the research from the pandemic point of view and we added some information to the chapter “Materials and Methods” and to the conclusion.However,the problem of the pandemic was not covered by the research as in our opinion,it should be taken into account in future research.
Point 6.It is considered appropriate to describe in the final part the limitations of the research, to justify the case studies examined in the text and to insert the future investigation steps.
Response 6.Thank you very much for this suggestion. We added information in the chapter“Conclusions”.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer appreciates the authors’ efforts to take the proposals and suggestions into account in order to improve the paper.
The authors emphasized the revision of the text by English language expert, however some mistakes remained in the first version of the paper (even in the title).
The authors’ response about the public transport supply and the financial-economic issues of transportation is reasonable, but some reflections are required to built into the current paper in order to improve its holistic view. Potential readers of the article may rightly miss this part of the issue for this reason the financial background of the projects should be clarified adequately.
The reviewer – despite the authors' argument – suggests to put at least a short description about the of the investigated areas' structure of settlements, the number and decomposition of the inhabitants (age groups, social status), the economic conditions, the transport facilities etc.
Figure 3 should have been numbered as Figure 1, consequently all additional numbers must also be modified. The contents on the figures must be reedited in order to receive good quality legends and captions into the final version of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for all your comments. We attempted to take into account the comments of PP reviewers, and have made the appropriate changes to the text.
The reviewer appreciates the authors’ efforts to take the proposals and suggestions into account in order to improve the paper.
Point 1. The authors emphasized the revision of the text by English language expert, however some mistakes remained in the first version of the paper (even in the title).
Response to point 1. Following the Referee’s comment, the article was revised ones more by an English language expert, including the title.
Point 2. The authors’ response about the public transport supply and the financial-economic issues of transportation is reasonable, but some reflections are required to built into the current paper in order to improve its holistic view. Potential readers of the article may rightly miss this part of the issue for this reason the financial background of the projects should be clarified adequately.
Response to point 2. Following the Referee’s recommendation, we completed the information on financial issues - in the Discussion chapter. We understand the importance of the topic. We plan to take it deeper in the future.
Point 3. The reviewer – despite the authors' argument – suggests to put at least a short description about the of the investigated areas' structure of settlements, the number and decomposition of the inhabitants (age groups, social status), the economic conditions, the transport facilities etc.
Response to point 3. We agree with this suggestion and completed a short description about the investigated areas' structure of settlements, the number of the inhabitants – at the beginning of the chapter Methods and Materials
Point 4. Figure 3 should have been numbered as Figure 1, consequently all additional numbers must also be modified.
Response to point 4. Thank you very much for this advice. Of course, all the numbers have been sorted out.
Point 5. The contents on the figures must be reedited in order to receive good quality legends and captions into the final version of the paper.
Response to point 5. Following the Referee’s recommendation, the legends of some figures have been shortened, which should contribute to better clarity.
Once again, thank you very much for the comments that contributed to the improvement of the quality of the article.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily addressed most issues
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for the comments that contributed to the improvement of the quality of the article.
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Figures 3 to 11 should be placed on a white background and saved in high resolution for better viewing.
In Figures 15 to 18 I recommend that you implement the legend better and check that the text is positioned correctly. The manuscript still contains some grammatical errors. Once this has been corrected, the paper will be eligible for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for all your comments. We attempted to take into account the comments of PP reviewers, and have made the appropriate changes to the text.
Point 1. Figures 3 to 11 should be placed on a white background and saved in high resolution for better viewing.
Response to point 1. Thank you very much for this advice. Of course, all the numbers have been sorted out.
Point 2. In Figures 15 to 18 I recommend that you implement the legend better and check that the text is positioned correctly.
Response to point 2. Following the Referee’s recommendation, the legends of figures 15 to 18 have been shortened, which should contribute to better clarity.
Point 3. The manuscript still contains some grammatical errors. Once this has been corrected, the paper will be eligible for publication.
Response to point 3. Following the Referee’s comment, the article was revised ones more by an English language expert, including the title.
Once again, thank you very much for the comments that contributed to the improvement of the quality of the article.
Authors
