Sustainability Assessment of Urban Public Transport for SDG Using Geospatial Big Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added interesting information and completed content that make the paper clearer and more scientifically sound. However, some of the drawbacks identified in my first report remain unsolved.

First, my concern about the construction of the Sustainability Index for PT based on UN SDG indicators. It should be clearly stated which SDG dimensions are addressed. Partial indicators cannot be taken as a measurement of SDG-11 in what refers to urban mobility. There are several topics related to urban mobility in SDG-11 targets: access to PT, share of PT in mobility patterns, accidentality rates, pollution and noise impacts because of transportation, urban space and density.

The authors should classify the selected indicators according to the sustainable dimensions included in SDG-11. Then, the final assessment could refer to the improvement of each of those indicators.

The definition of the indicators has been improved. However, some are still meaningless:

-          Share of new energy buses – does it mean electric buses?

-          Bus entry – not clear definition related to parked vehicles?

-          Public Transport Priority Policy – which concrete regulations (twice) are in place?

-          Millions of people “have” PT vehicles – wrong name, impossible that people were owners of PT vehicles. It seems that refers to the supply of buses (the number of buses) divided by population (buses per every 10.000 inhabitants)

Figure 2 improved the understanding of the process. But which POIs have been included in the model? Which are the statistical data collected, and which land layers were scanned?

Table 3 shows the different levels of PT performance, but the last two levels have the same level. Could you elaborate on the concrete meaning of those levels in terms of supply, access, etc?

Figures 6 and 7 have the same caption; it should be an error.

Moreover, Figures 3-4-6-7 do not deliver any apparent results. Perhaps a zoom on the central area could provide more relevant insights.

Figure 8 shows that two districts present improvements, now well described. Therefore, some explanation of the bad results of the other 4 are necessary.

I asked to describe the Case Study of Guilin. The authors have included some new data and contextual information. However, it still lacks the city's mobility framework: PT transport modes, network density, the share of PT in total mobility, the share of pedestrian trips, and accident rates. It is unnecessary to have a detailed description, but at least to know if it is a car-oriented city or favours pedestrians and PT users. And all the case study info should be included in section 3, not in the introduction, and elsewhere in the document.

The conclusions should elaborate on the validity of the method to measure the SDGoals related to urban mobility and how it could be applied to other contexts.

The final paragraph of section 7 is a repetition of a previous paragraph.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still, terminology and English meaning merit a revision.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I appreciate the focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as they are highly relevant. However, this paper has some significant shortcomings that need to be addressed. The quality of English is average; I recommend consulting with a native English speaker to rectify this issue.

2. Add a paragraph explaining why public transport and shared mobility are more sustainable than private cars in Intruduction. For example because these modes of transport are more inclusive, cleaner, and affordable, making them highly beneficial. Therefore, your research on public transport is crucial for Guilin. You may refer to these three references for further information:

Hosseini, K., & Stefaniec, A. (2023). A wolf in sheep's clothing: Exposing the structural violence of private electric automobility. Energy Research & Social Science, 99, 103052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103052

Mattioli, G., Roberts, C., Steinberger, J. K., & Brown, A. (2020). The political economy of car dependence: A systems of provision approach. Energy research & social science, 66, 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101486

3. The Discussion section should be revised and expanded. In its current form, it resembles the Results section. This section needs to clearly differentiate by interpreting and analysing the results rather than just presenting them.

4. An error is present on Page 4, Line 160; please correct it.

5. In Figure 2, please change the colours, especially for the yellow parallelograms, as the text is not clear.

6. In Table 1, "Millions of people have public transportation vehicles." It is unclear what do you mean. Please clarify and revise it.

7. On page 8, line 278, '“M”is the 500 m coverage of the population.', which is assumed to be the catchment area for each bus stop. It is unclear why a 500-meter distance was chosen. If you mean the population within a walkable distance to each bus stop, please include a reference for this assertion. For example, you could state: "population in the catchment area of bus stations (within a radius of 500 m, a walkable distance)." Please ensure to include an appropriate reference for this part:

 

Hosseini, K., Stefaniec, A., O'Mahony, M., & Caulfield, B. (2023). Optimising shared electric mobility hubs: Insights from performance analysis and factors influencing riding demand. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 13, 101052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101052 

8. In Figures 3 and 4, the details are not clear.

9. Reference number 9 is irrelevant and should be replaced with below reference related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

 

Hosseini, K., Stefaniec, A., & Hosseini, S. P. (2021). World Heritage Sites in developing countries: Assessing impacts and handling complexities toward sustainable tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20, 100616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100616

10. Very long sentences should never be used in academic writing. For example, on page 18 at the beginning of your conclusion (Line 517), your sentence contains 70 words. This is unacceptable. Please divide this sentence into at least three separate sentences. Also, divide similar other long sentences.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is average; I recommend consulting with a native English speaker to rectify this issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper's content and filled the gaps. It is now clearer and better structured. English has also been improved throughout the document.

However, further improvements are needed. The authors highlighted the importance of public transport services for both residents and tourist trips. The results should address those different types of users. Similarly, the conclusions should comment on how tourists and commuters have improved access to their corresponding POIs: tourist spots and work/study/commercial main destinations. The results should be of interest for other cities and international contexts.

 

Some minor corrections for clarification

Lines 244-246 – It is said “bus passenger volume was 113,980,300/person” that it is meaninless. Perhaps, the authors want to say 113,980,300 passengers/year?. Similarly, “473 traffic accidents resulting in 534 injuries/year?”.

 

Line 356—The different grades of sustainable development in Table 3 need to be rewritten. They should follow a progressive scale, such as very low, low, medium, good, and very good.

 Figure 5 caption has no clear meaning. What means “movement direction of the bus?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have mentioned in the revision some phrases that do not have a clear meaning. A new English revision is recommended.

Author Response

Response Letter

Dear Editors and reviewers

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. We hope this revision can make our paper more acceptable. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Reviewer1

• However, further improvements are needed. The authors highlighted the importance of public transport services for both residents and tourist trips. The results should address those different types of users. Similarly, the conclusions should comment on how tourists and commuters have improved access to their corresponding POIs: tourist spots and work/study/commercial main destinations. The results should be of interest for other cities and international contexts.

Answer：Thank you for your insightful question.But this problem requires a lot of surveys to count their travel preferences, frequency, destination and other information in order to better understand their travel characteristics.So a superficial description is given in the paper and the problem will be studied in depth in future research.

There are differences in public transportation needs between tourists and residents, with the former traveling for sightseeing and focusing on routes that cover attractions and business districts, and the latter focusing more on their daily needs, such as work and shopping. Tourists have the flexibility to travel during off-peak hours and use external sources for route information, while residents often travel during peak hours and are more familiar with the local public transportation network. Understanding and accommodating these differences can improve the relevance of public transportation services.

Then, it is necessary to offer different strategies for different types of users. Tourists should plan their routes ahead of time in order to take into account the location of popular places, such as attractions and business districts. Commuters should explore employment areas and other significant destinations to establish a regular commuting route. Tourists can attempt to avoid traveling during peak traffic hours, as this can alleviate traffic congestion and save time, enabling them to reach their destination more quickly. Commuters can opt for dedicated commuter lines or public transportation services that are known for their punctuality.

• Lines 244-246 – It is said “bus passenger volume was 113,980,300/person” that it is meaninless. Perhaps, the authors want to say 113,980,300 passengers/year?. Similarly, “473 traffic accidents resulting in 534 injuries/year?”.

Answer：Thank you for your insightful question.What I wanted to express was this meaning that you expressed. So, I have made changes in the manuscript.

• Line 356—The different grades of sustainable development in Table 3 need to be rewritten. They should follow a progressive scale, such as very low, low, medium, good, and very good.

 Figure 5 caption has no clear meaning. What means “movement direction of the bus?

Answer：Thank you for pointing out these problems.Table 3 has now been revised and the title of Figure 5 has been changed.It means The Center of Gravity and Standard Deviation Ellipse Distribution of Bus Stops in Guilin City from 2015 to 2021

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done, I am satisfied with the revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and help in making the manuscript readable and scientifically sound.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is more of a technical report rather than a scientific article.

You may add some scientific contributions by making an advancement in assessing procedures, performing sensitivity analyses, and comparing different case studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality is acceptable, however it needs some improvement. E. g. what does "Ten thousand people own public transport vehicles" in Table 1 mean?

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Managing Editor of Sustainability

The manuscript entitled "Sustainability assessment of urban public transport for SDG using geospatial big data” is interesting research in which the authors evaluated the sustainable development of urban public transport in Guilin City, China, using geospatial big data and statistical analysis. The study focused on assessing the progress and trends in public transportation infrastructure, service quality, and accessibility over the years 2015 to 2021. By analyzing various indicators and sustainability criteria, the research aimed to provide insights into the current state of public transport in Guilin, identify areas for improvement, and offer recommendations for enhancing the sustainability and efficiency of the urban transportation system. However, according to the mentioned items, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript. 

Comments for authors

1.      What specific data fusion technology was suggested by the study to improve the resolution and accuracy of SDGs measurement, and how would this technology address the challenges in combining panel statistics and geospatial data?

2.      The authors should explain the significance of the public transportation evaluation index system developed for Lingguilin City under the framework of United Nations goals, and how the sustainable development score was calculated over the years 2015 to 2021.

3.      How did the study analyze the regional scale differences in the proportion of population with convenient public transport in Yanshan District and Lingui District, and what were the key trends observed over the years?

4.      More recent papers should be provided in the manuscript, such as: doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2018.2828651, doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3182410, doi.org/10.1007/s40747-023-01099-z.

5.      How were the comprehensive evaluation scores of sustainable development of public transport calculated and what specific parameters were considered in this evaluation?

6.      How was the accuracy of the POI data, population grid data, statistical data, and field research data ensured in constructing the public transportation evaluation index system for Lingguilin City?

7.      What were the key factors influencing the gradual increase in the proportion of the population with convenient public transport in Yanshan District and Lingui District from 2015 to 2021?

8.      Can you elaborate on the challenges identified in realizing SDGs despite the recognized importance and development status, and how continuous monitoring and evaluation can help countries address these challenges and achieve sustainable progress?

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes to measure the evolution of sustainability levels provided by the public transport system over six years in Guilin, China.

The sustainability approach is linked to the UN SDGs. Although some papers are referred to in the introduction and literature review, there is no clear identification of the research gaps and the research objectives of the paper. It seems like another application of the SDG indicators in the context of a city in China. What is the scientific value added to the research? Why did the authors select the indicators that they applied? Do they cover all aspects of sustainable development?

Another drawback is the lack of contextualisation. Why Guilin? Some data from that city are necessary to demonstrate that it differs from the revised literature. If the paper measures the performance of public transport, some data from the city, modal split, supply, and demand of public transport are necessary to understand the context. Why are only six districts analysed? Why not other districts?

Furthermore, the selection of the indicators in the “Index system of urban public transport evaluation” is not based on any scientific analysis. They should be grouped according to the SDGs. What are the impacts they intend to measure? Which evaluation goals measure each of them? Are they statistically independent, or are they measuring correlated effects? What is the scientific interpretation of the index scores? It should be meaningfully linked to the objectives of the study.

The study is based on a rich georeferenced database that could be used to measure transport, land use, and sustainable development targets. However, both the method and the process need to be oriented to achieve specific objectives that should be justified as necessary for the case under study.

Then, the results should be valid for international readers in other cities and contexts. If the results are only of local interest, the study is not appropriate for an international journal.

The abstract should summarise the whole content and results. At present, it is more of an introduction than an abstract. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be revised throughout the paper. The names of some indicators do not correspond to the specific words used in the specialised literature on transport and mobility.