Assessing the Effectiveness of Sustainable Strategies to Bridge the Digital Divide in the Mobility Sector: A Pilot Test in Seoul

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents strategies aimed at bridging the digital gap within the transportation sector. Initially, two primary methods are identified following a thorough literature review: (1) educating users on app utilization, and (2) implementing an AI-driven Mobility Service App. To assess the efficacy of these strategies, a pilot test is conducted in Seoul. The outcomes of these trials indicate that the AI-based Mobility Service App is particularly effective in reducing travel time and enhancing overall convenience. In summary, this paper suggests the following improvements:

1. Revise the introduction by adding subsections under 1.1 Literature Review and renumbering them accordingly. The Literature Review section should be structured around key themes such as Digital Divide, Digital Mobility Service, Pilot Test, etc.

2. Enhance the clarity of Figures 1-2 and strengthen the logical flow of Figure 2.

3. Clarify the motivation behind the research in both the introduction and abstract. For instance, the sentence "However, these benefits will be limited to those who proficient in utilizing them effectively" is ambiguous. The author should explicitly list the motivations and innovations of this paper separately.

4. Provide a rationale and justification for the sample selection logic outlined in section 2.2.1.

5. Conclude the final chapter by explicitly outlining the study's limitations and offering insights into future development trends.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding changes have been highlighted and tracked in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  Revise the introduction by adding subsections under 1.1 Literature Review and renumbering them accordingly. The Literature Review section should be structured around key themes such as Digital Divide, Digital Mobility Service, Pilot Test, etc.

Response 1:  We have revised the introduction to include detailed subsections. The updated Literature Review now features specific sections: 1.1.1 "Definition of Digital Divide" and 1.1.2 "Digital Inclusion Policy".

Comments 2: Enhance the clarity of Figures 1-2 and strengthen the logical flow of Figure 2.

Response 2: We have replaced Figures 1 and 2 with updated versions for enhanced clarity and comprehension. The new Figure 2 has been improved and is now explicitly linked to Reference 33.

Comments 3:  Clarify the motivation behind the research in both the introduction and abstract. For instance, the sentence "However, these benefits will be limited to those who proficient in utilizing them effectively" is ambiguous. The author should explicitly list the motivations and innovations of this paper separately.

Response 3: Agree. We have revised both the Abstract and Introduction to clearly delineate the motivations and innovations of our study.

Comments 4: Provide a rationale and justification for the sample selection logic outlined in section 2.2.1.

Response 4: We have comprehensively revised section 2.2.1 (now renumbered as 2.1.2) to include a detailed rationale for our sample selection process. This section, found on lines 186-199, explains the criteria and methodology employed in choosing our sample.

Comments 5: 5. Conclude the final chapter by explicitly outlining the study's limitations and offering insights into future development trends.

Response 5: The final chapter has been expanded to explicitly discuss the study's limitations and future research directions. These additions can be found in lines 606-612, where we outline potential areas for further investigation and development.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We appreciate the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your insights and look forward to any further questions or comments you may have regarding our submission.

Sincerely,

Jihun Seo

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the manuscript entitled ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Strategies to Bridge the Digital Divide in the Mobility Sector: A Pilot Test in Seoul’ with interest. The article clearly articulates the increased efficiency, convenience and accessibility brought about by the widespread use of digital technologies in the transport sector, while also highlighting the problem of the digital divide that may limit the spread of these advantages. However, I believe that the paper leaves something to be desired in terms of innovation and needs to be supplemented for better reader acceptance.

1. The report shows that the associations between technology acceptance factors are not uniform across groups (e.g., older adults, low-income earners, and people with disabilities), particularly with regard to the effects of perceived safety and ease of use on usefulness. For some groups, perceived safety did not significantly correlate with intent to use and other factors of technology acceptance, whereas it did in others. This variability needs to be further analysed in the discussion section to explore the underlying socio-economic, cultural or skill differences.

2. The use of cross-sectional data led to distortions in the relationships between variables, especially in the analysis of regression coefficients between ease of use and usefulness. Such snapshot data at a point in time may not fully reflect the process of technology adoption by individuals over time, and the study could attempt to introduce longitudinal tracking data to improve the reliability of causal inferences.

3. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation strategies, especially the application of AI mobile services, is limited to a pilot test and there is insufficient information on the distribution of the sample size, representativeness and geographical limitations.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding changes have been highlighted and tracked in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: The report shows that the associations between technology acceptance factors are not uniform across groups (e.g., older adults, low-income earners, and people with disabilities), particularly with regard to the effects of perceived safety and ease of use on usefulness. For some groups, perceived safety did not significantly correlate with intent to use and other factors of technology acceptance, whereas it did in others. This variability needs to be further analysed in the discussion section to explore the underlying socio-economic, cultural or skill differences.

Response 1:  We acknowledge the critical importance of analyzing the variability in technology acceptance across different groups. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Discussion section in lines 508-533. 

Comments 2: The use of cross-sectional data led to distortions in the relationships between variables, especially in the analysis of regression coefficients between ease of use and usefulness. Such snapshot data at a point in time may not fully reflect the process of technology adoption by individuals over time, and the study could attempt to introduce longitudinal tracking data to improve the reliability of causal inferences.

Response 2: We recognize the limitations inherent in using cross-sectional data, as mentioned. To address this, we propose a future work in our revised manuscript, lines 609-612.

Comments 3:  The evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation strategies, especially the application of AI mobile services, is limited to a pilot test and there is insufficient information on the distribution of the sample size, representativeness and geographical limitations.

Response 3: We appreciate the critique regarding the scope and depth of our pilot test evaluation. Due to limited budget and duration, we were required to make specific choices regarding the sample size and the pilot test routes. We strived to select representative samples that accurately reflect the needs of digitally vulnerable populations. For the same reason, the development of the AI-based Mobility Service App was included in Limitation and Conclusion and Future Work sections. We would appreciate your understanding of the constraints under which our research was conducted.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

Thank you once again for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We look forward to your further guidance and hopefully the acceptance of our revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Jihun Seo

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is a valuable study based on the authors' original research on public transport usage, supported by an app, involving three user groups (n = 90, digitally disadvantaged) of which two experimental groups (n = 30 each) received different training.

Users who received training, used the app more actively and reduced their travel times, especially walking time. Interestingly, control group members more frequently traveled by subway only, which is typical for people with poor orientation in the transport network.

I have some remarks, however, that I would like to suggest to the authors for their consideration:

·         The structure of the MDPI Article should follow Introduction, Materials and Methods (in this case, I would prefer to call it "Method"), Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (see https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). 

·         The authors repeatedly use the phrase "AI-based Digital Mobility Service App." It is unclear to me why the paper refers to AI-based apps and not all Mobility Services Apps. Additionally, the word "Digital" seems redundant – are there any non-digital apps? 

·         The paper doesn't explicitly refer to the MaaS concept, although in lines 524-526, the authors indirectly mention it – surprisingly mentioning Urban Air Mobility and not mentioning ride-hailing, car-sharing, or bike-sharing.

·         A clear objective of the study should be outlined in the introduction. The content between lines 42 and 54 is more characteristic of a summary than an introduction and should be moved or removed. 

·         The conclusions and abstract sections should be clearer, stating the authors' contribution to the field. 

·         It is unclear why so few people with disabilities were included in the research, and why experimental group 1 contained no disabled people. This could potentially influence average travel time (disabled people may need more time to walk/change). In this case, it would be fair to exclude disabled people from the other groups for the analysis.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding changes have been highlighted and tracked in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  The structure of the MDPI Article should follow Introduction, Materials and Methods (in this case, I would prefer to call it "Method"), Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (see https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). 

Response 1:  We have revised the manuscript to adhere strictly to the MDPI structure. Sections 2 and 3 in the previous manuscript have been integrated into Section 2, "Method". This section includes Subsections 2.1 "Pilot Test" and 2.2 "Technology Acceptance Factor". 

Comments 2: The authors repeatedly use the phrase "AI-based Digital Mobility Service App." It is unclear to me why the paper refers to AI-based apps and not all Mobility Services Apps. Additionally, the word "Digital" seems redundant – are there any non-digital apps?

Response 2:  The AI-based Mobility Service App is a strategy newly proposed in our research through the literature review to promote digital inclusion in the mobility sector. This explanation can be found in the revised manuscript, lines 141-150. Additionally, to ensure consistency in terminology related to mobility services, we have standardized the use of the term "Digital Mobility Service" throughout the manuscript. We appreciate your understanding of these points.

Comments 3:  The paper doesn't explicitly refer to the MaaS concept, although in lines 524-526, the authors indirectly mention it – surprisingly mentioning Urban Air Mobility and not mentioning ride-hailing, car-sharing, or bike-sharing.

Response 3: Agree. We have inserted information about MaaS and Shared Mobility into the revised manuscript, lines 39-45, with additional references.

Comments 4: A clear objective of the study should be outlined in the introduction. The content between lines 42 and 54 is more characteristic of a summary than an introduction and should be moved or removed.

Response 4: We have revised the introduction to clearly state the objectives of our study, which are outlined in lines 39-45.

Comments 5:  The conclusions and abstract sections should be clearer, stating the authors' contribution to the field.

Response 5: We have rewritten both the abstract and the conclusions to clearly highlight our contributions to the field of digital mobility services and the implications of our findings in addressing the digital divide.

Comments 6:  It is unclear why so few people with disabilities were included in the research, and why experimental group 1 contained no disabled people. This could potentially influence average travel time (disabled people may need more time to walk/change). In this case, it would be fair to exclude disabled people from the other groups for the analysis.

Response 6: We acknowledge this oversight and have revisited our sample distribution using the raw data. The total travel time including people with disabilities is 54 minutes and 35 seconds, and excluding them, it is 54 minutes and 04 seconds. Therefore, we can consider the results to be consistent. We recruited participants for the pilot test from digitally disadvantaged groups; thus, excluding people with disabilities was not an option. We appreciate your understanding of this matter.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We appreciate the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your insights and look forward to any further questions or comments you may have regarding our submission.

Sincerely,

Jihun Seo

Reviewer 4 Report

Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to bridge the digital divide in the mobility sector in Seoul is an important endeavour given the city's technological advancement and its commitment to inclusive development. This paper it’s interesting, good write and good structure. However, I think that the authors efforts must be made to understand and write in the paper how this study could possibly be generalised or possibly replicated elsewhere.  In addition I think that the title is most long, I will propose for example:

"Digital Divide in Seoul's Mobility Sector: Pilot Test"

In addition, could be useful individuate in a first part of paper the Objectives of pilot test that the authors could be obtained for example:

•          Identify Barriers: Understand the primary barriers contributing to the digital divide in the mobility sector in Seoul.

•          Test Strategies: Pilot test various strategies aimed at bridging the digital divide.

•          Evaluate Effectiveness: Assess the impact of these strategies on improving digital access and inclusion in mobility services.

•          Gather Feedback: Obtain feedback from participants to refine and improve the strategies for wider implementation.

The same, can be make for the Expected Outcomes and write in the conclusion if the Expected Outcomes was obtained.

Finally, I would recommend adding some references also regarding the driving behaviour of users with other assistance systems for example ADAS which is a current topic also in relation to MaaS. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding changes have been highlighted and tracked in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  

• Identify Barriers: Understand the primary barriers contributing to the digital divide in the mobility sector in Seoul.
• Test Strategies: Pilot test various strategies aimed at bridging the digital divide.
• Evaluate Effectiveness: Assess the impact of these strategies on improving digital access and inclusion in mobility services.
• Gather Feedback: Obtain feedback from participants to refine and improve the strategies for wider implementation.

Response 1:  Agree. We have restructured and revised the introduction to include a clear listing of the objectives as you suggested in the revised manuscript, lines 33-67. 

Comments 2:  The same, can be make for the Expected Outcomes and write in the conclusion if the Expected Outcomes was obtained.

Response 2:  To address this issue, we have expanded Conclusion section with future works. 

Comments 3:  Finally, I would recommend adding some references also regarding the driving behaviour of users with other assistance systems for example ADAS which is a current topic also in relation to MaaS. 

Response 3: We have inserted information about MaaS  into the revised manuscript, lines 39-45, with additional references.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We appreciate the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your insights and look forward to any further questions or comments you may have regarding our submission.

Sincerely,

Jihun Seo

Reviewer 5 Report

1. Figure 2 is not clear.

2. Does the performance of the artificial intelligence algorithm used in this article have an impact on the research conclusions? Has the algorithm involved been commercialized?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and your valuable comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding changes have been highlighted and tracked in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  Figure 2 is not clear.

Response 1:  We have replaced Figure 2 with updated versions for enhanced clarity

Comments 2:  Does the performance of the artificial intelligence algorithm used in this article have an impact on the research conclusions? Has the algorithm involved been commercialized?

Response 2:  Regarding commercialization, the AI algorithm has not yet been commercialized; this is a limitation of our study. Therefore, we have included this point in the Conclusion and Future Works section.

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.

We appreciate the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your insights and look forward to any further questions or comments you may have regarding our submission.

Sincerely,

Jihun Seo

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have corrected the first round of review comments more satisfactorily, and there are no other issues at this time, so we recommend acceptance of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for improving the paper. Now it's fine.

Reviewer 5 Report

no other concern.