Assessment of the Improvement of Public Transport in Hillside Cities Considering the Impact of Topography on Walking Choices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Based on the previous framework of utility-based accessibility measures, this paper expands its scope of application to incorporate the influence of topography on walking choices. The paper uses the 2018 survey data to estimate the parameters of MNL model to reveal the mode-choice mechanisms and finds out the result that the incorporation of topography actually improves the hit rate of MNL Model by comparing the Model-T with Model-F. Another contribution of this paper is it has provided a method for estimating the impact of carrying out a new transportation improvement project. The methods proposed in the paper are generally considered too simple. The following comments are provided for your consideration.
Concerns:
1. The paper mentioned by the author contributes to the consideration of public transport service levels and practical verification of transportation improvement projects. However, these two points alone are insufficient to confirm acceptance as they were the analysis result of proposed methods rather than improved method itself. The sole contribution of this paper lies in its consideration of topography's impact.
2. Page 4, line 123-127, the rationale behind the selection of these parameters for mode-choice estimation is not provided. This is significant as readers unfamiliar with the model may question why other variables, such as occupation, were not included.
3. Page 4, line 139-140, the paper refers to the 2021 experiment, but does not provide a description of its results as only data from the 2018 survey is mentioned.
4. Page 7 and 8, the figure 3 and 4, these two figures could be combined into a single larger figure to enhance clarity in illustrating the differences between two modes and the contrast between implementing new mobility versus not doing so. In my view, it would be more effective to compare the before-and-after states of Figure 4 rather than solely examining the post-implementation changes (as depicted in subfigure b).
5. Page 7, line 236 and 238, the first letter of first and second should be uppercase rather than lowercase.
6. Page 8, line 253-254, the new mobility makes use of the utility function of bus while these two modes have a great difference in stops setting, which would definitely make the parameter ?6 - ratio of egress to travel time varied.
The writing can be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
11. The paper addresses an important but often neglected topic of the impact of topography on local mobility. Authors focused on the assessment of the accessibility improvements taking into account the impact of topography on the walking behavior. Taking the results they formulated research on the relationship between improving the accessibility and the use of public transport.
22. Structure of the study is clear and logic.
33. Abstract is well prepared and complete. It clearly presents goal of the study, methods and obtained results.
44. I positively justify taking one part of the city as an area for examination. Research on walking activity should be always deployed in specific environment. For the analysis Authors developed modelling scheme which is a strong point of the study. The modelling is based on the extensive research using paper-based questionnaire in 2018 and newly collected data (2021).
55. I suggest to provide more detailed information about the general survey results and process of data collection. Typical solution is providing a table on “Descriptive statistics”. So far, Authors do not provide information about the structure of the sample (i.e. gender, age stratification, etc…). As they are provided in Appendix 1, I leave it to the Authors’ decision. Also information about the sampling method should be provided in the main text.
66. Authors completed their research goal, providing small (based only on one case study) but valuable input on links between topography and transportation planning.
77. I suggest to explain why multinomial logit was selected as a main research tool.
88. Assuming walking speed at 80 m/min means 4,8 km per hour [row 190]. Was that value evaluated from the perspective of older society in Japan?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thanks for your interesting and timely work.
However, I found two main issues in your work for which I would give you some constructive comments:
1) literature is poor and very old in the references. Please update it with more recent literature;
2) the literature/background section has been completely forgotten, jumping directly from introduction to methods. Please adjust this and for instance consider these researches with interesting literature review sections in your paper:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/4/1578
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-29504-6_21
I recommended - as the only major comment - authors to completely build up the hitherto missing literature section (it couldn't be commented as it simply does not exist!) in their work by considering the rich literature review offered in the suggested references. They must look at the works cited in the Literature sections in the suggested articles to find easily interesting results from literature.
In any case, the problem of the missing literature remains crucial.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer evaluated sustainability-2372937 as a rejection. Sustainability-2372937 conducted a questionnaire survey and examined the benefits of considering topography in the implementation of public transport systems and in improving mobility in a hillside district. The main conclusion is that a 1-m increase in elevation led to a 9.54-m increase in walking distance. However, these two problems cannot be overlooked.
1.Ethic problem
Sustainability-2372937 conducted a questionnaire survey of residents in the Tomioka district. The survey involved human participants. Therefore, the authors declare that the investigations were carried out in accordance with the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975. According to point 23 of this declaration, approval from the local institutional review board or other appropriate ethics committee must be obtained before undertaking the research to confirm that the study meets the national and international guidelines. A sustainability journal requires all authors to write a statement, including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board in the institutional review board statement of the article.
(Please see the website as following: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#rethics )
According to this criterion for sustainability journals, your study cannot be considered to have been conducted ethically. The reviewer was more concerned about the lack of ethics than the novelty of the conclusions. Therefore, sustainability-2372937 is not appropriate for publication in this journal.
2. Value of Conclusion
Regarding sustainability-2372937, the main conclusion is that a 1-m increase in elevation led to a 9.54-m increase in walking distance. The value of 9.54 m might be a versatile result for flat districts. However, in hilly districts, if the slope angle changes, the standard values may change, even at a height of 1 m. Therefore, the reviewer evaluated the conclusion of sustainability-2372937 as not invalid.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments have been addressed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewer again evaluated sustainability-2372937 as rejection. Authors have misunderstood the meaning of the reviewer's points. The issue is not the rules in Japan, but those in this Sustainability journal. The questionnaire survey on daily activities is a human subject survey that must be reviewed by an ethics committee.
Please refer to the text on the webpage.
For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, social media research), all participants must be fully informed if the anonymity is assured, why the research is being conducted, how their data will be used and if there are any risks associated. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee must be obtained prior to conducting the study. If ethical approval is not required, authors must either provide an exemption from the ethics committee or are encouraged to cite the local or national legislation that indicates ethics approval is not required for this type of study. Where a study has been granted exemption, the name of the ethics committee which provided this should be stated in Section ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ with a full explanation regarding why ethical approval was not required.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#rethics
As following the journal criteria, if ethical approval is not required, authors must either provide an exemption from the ethics committee or are encouraged to cite the local or national legislation that indicates ethics approval is not required for this type of study. This means that the authors need to submit approval from the local institutional review board. The reviewer cannot trust the existence of university guidelines that do not require ethics committee certificates. The reviewer recommends that the authors obtain ethics committee approval from a reliable research organization other than your university.
It should be noted that the reviewer does not deny this manuscript (sustainability-2372937). This manuscript can be considered an academic paper if you have made some revisions. However, this manuscript without an ethics certificate is not suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal because of ethical issues.
