Moving towards Sustainable Mobility: A Comparative Analysis of Smart Urban Mobility in Croatian Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes the study of intelligent urban mobility in the Republic of Croatia, based on the indicators of ISO standards, through a comparative analysis of small, medium and large cities. The indicators used are then related to each other within the three categories of cities analysed.

The abstract clearly illustrates the content of the paper using a linear structure.

Introduction: provides a clear picture of the problem being addressed and clearly explains the aim of the paper, the research questions and the structure of the entire document.

Methodology: Section 2.1 must be implemented. More information is needed. Where did the collected data come from? How was the “data cleansing” done? Explain the diagram shown in Figure 1 in detail. The methodology section is essential. It needs to be clear and detailed to facilitate the replicability of the approach.

The discussion and especially the conclusions need to be revised. I advise the authors to revise the research questions and state the corresponding answers in the conclusions.

Furthermore, the topic of sustainable cities and communities is widely addressed by European policy, therefore it should be further explored (e.g. a reference to the SDG goals of Agenda 2030 is desirable)

Author Response

The answer is in the attachment.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting but there are some problems to resolve:

-The paper mentions a research methodology without providing detailed information about the data collection process, sample size, or specific statistical methods used. A lack of transparency in the methodology may limit the reproducibility and generalizability of the findings.

-The paper does not provide sufficient background information about smart urban mobility, relevant existing literature, or the significance of the chosen indicators. This lack of context makes it challenging for readers unfamiliar with the subject to fully grasp the implications of the findings.

-The paper focuses on the Republic of Croatia, and the findings may not be easily generalizable to other regions or countries. The specific context of Croatia, including urban planning policies and technological infrastructure, should be considered when interpreting the results.

-The paper briefly mentions limitations related to subjectivity but does not thoroughly discuss potential biases, confounding factors, or other methodological challenges. A more comprehensive exploration of limitations would enhance the credibility of the study.

-While the paper suggests future research, it doesn't provide specific recommendations for addressing the identified limitations. Offering guidance on how future studies can build upon or overcome these limitations would strengthen the paper.

It's ok.

Author Response

The answer is in the attachment.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper evaluates the state of smart urban mobility in Croatian cities using indicators from ISO standards. It fills a research gap by providing a comparative analysis of small, medium-sized, and large cities in Croatia. The study highlights the low level of smart urban mobility across the country, with large cities showing slightly higher scores. Strong correlations between individual indicators emphasize the interconnected nature of urban mobility systems. The research underscores the importance of managing all elements of urban mobility in an integrated manner to achieve sustainability.

My Comments::

1) How were the indicators from ISO standards (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019) selected for evaluating smart urban mobility, and were there any considerations for additional indicators?

2) Can you elaborate on the methodology used to assess the state of urban mobility in Croatian cities, particularly regarding data collection and analysis techniques?

3) What specific challenges were encountered in conducting a comparative analysis of urban mobility across cities of different sizes, and how were these challenges addressed?

4) Could you discuss the implications of the research findings on urban planning and policy-making in Croatian cities, especially regarding efforts to improve smart urban mobility?

5) How do you account for subjectivity in the assessment of urban mobility levels, and what measures were taken to mitigate bias in the research methodology?

6) Were there any unexpected or surprising findings during the analysis of the correlation between individual indicators of smart urban mobility?

7) Can you provide insights into the potential reasons behind the significant differences observed in certain indicators between small, medium-sized, and large cities?

8) What recommendations would you offer to city administrations based on the research findings to enhance the level of smart urban mobility in Croatian cities?

9) How do you foresee the evolution of urban mobility systems in Croatian cities in the context of advancing technologies and changing societal needs?

10) Are there any plans for further research to expand upon the findings of this study or to address any limitations identified in the research methodology?

Author Response

The answer is in the attachment.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors clearly responded to the reviewer's comments, improving some parts of their manuscript

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

An additional English grammar check was made at the request of Reviewer 2. All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made good job improveing the paper.

It,s ok.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

An additional English grammar check was made. All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

An additional English grammar check was made at the request of Reviewer 2. All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.

Authors