Developing Intelligent Integrated Solutions to Improve Pedestrian Safety for Sustainable Urban Mobility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has some typos and grammatical errors 
It is advisable to better emphasise the novelty of the research in the introductory part and the methodological replicability to other contexts and to include more bibliographical references concerning the methodology adopted.
In addition, it is advisable to include more comments on the road safety of pedestrians in terms of gender, age and context.
We therefore recommend reading the following research works

1) Ištoka Otković, I., Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Zečević, Đ., & Šimunović, M. (2024). Reconstructing Intersection Conflict Zones: Microsimulation-Based Analysis of Traffic Safety for Pedestrians. Infrastructures, 9(12), 215.
2) Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Šurdonja, S., Ištoka Otković, I., & Campisi, T. (2022). Child-pedestrian traffic safety at crosswalks—literature review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1142.
3) Otković, I. I., Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Šurdonja, S., & Campisi, T. (2025). Analysis of influencing parameters on children’s crossing speeds at non-signalized crosswalks using neural network models. Transportation Research Procedia, 90, 543-550.

It is recommended to also include the sources of the figures included in the manuscript and to better emphasise the limitations of the research in the concluding part
The conclusions without the aid of bibliographical references should better emphasise how the results produced by the research can help in the understanding of the critical issues related to pedestrian road safety and in the drafting of strategies for the mitigation of the analysed problem 
How can the results produced by the present research improve sustainability as well as accessibility and liveability in urban and non-urban areas?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

The paper has some typos and grammatical errors. It is advisable to better emphasise the novelty of the research in the introductory part and the methodological replicability to other contexts and to include more bibliographical references concerning the methodology adopted.

Response 1:

Thanks for the remark. We have once again reviewed the text, adjusted the introductory section, added another section to the review part, and increased the number of bibliographical references.

Point 2:

In addition, it is advisable to include more comments on the road safety of pedestrians in terms of gender, age and context.

We therefore recommend reading the following research works

1) Ištoka Otković, I., Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Zečević, Đ., & Šimunović, M. (2024). Reconstructing Intersection Conflict Zones: Microsimulation-Based Analysis of Traffic Safety for Pedestrians. Infrastructures, 9(12), 215.

2) Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Šurdonja, S., Ištoka Otković, I., & Campisi, T. (2022). Child-pedestrian traffic safety at crosswalks—literature review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1142.

3) Otković, I. I., Deluka-Tibljaš, A., Šurdonja, S., & Campisi, T. (2025). Analysis of influencing parameters on children’s crossing speeds at non-signalized crosswalks using neural network models. Transportation Research Procedia, 90, 543-550.

Response 2:

Thanks for the remark. We have added references to the relevant studies recommended by the reviewer, addressing pedestrian road safety with consideration of gender, age, and context.

Point 3 

It is recommended to also include the sources of the figures included in the manuscript and to better emphasise the limitations of the research in the concluding part.

Response 3:

Thanks for the remark. All figures were created by the authors, and we have incorporated the study’s limitations into the concluding section.

Point 4:

The conclusions without the aid of bibliographical references should better emphasise how the results produced by the research can help in the understanding of the critical issues related to pedestrian road safety and in the drafting of strategies for the mitigation of the analysed problem
How can the results produced by the present research improve sustainability as well as accessibility and liveability in urban and non-urban areas?

Response 4:

Thanks for the remark. We have elaborated in greater detail on the key aspects that were the focus of our study. In our view, any measures that reduce the likelihood and number of traffic accidents contribute to a more rhythmic operation of the transport system, thereby enhancing its resilience. Questions of accessibility and livability in certain areas fell outside the scope of this article and will therefore be explored in future research.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:

Excellent

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our work.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is entitled “Developing intelligent integrated solutions to improve pedestrian safety for sustainable urban mobility” In this case, the idea and results of the paper are interesting but the following comments can be utilized to improve this paper in future.

 

Abstract

• Problem Statement: The opening sentence is too general and vague. Try to quantify or qualify the problem, e.g., “Pedestrians and cyclists account for X% of traffic-related fatalities worldwide.”
• “Car-infrastructure-driver-pedestrian system” is confusing. Consider using more standard terminology like “the road traffic ecosystem” or “multi-agent traffic system.”

 

Results:

• The manuscript frequently presents observations (e.g., "braking distance about 40 meters," "probability of accident 0.67") without statistical analysis, confidence intervals, or error margins. Provide statistical context—for example, standard deviation, sample size, p-values (if applicable), or comparative benchmarks—to make findings robust.
• Figures are referred to generically (e.g., “Figure 2” or “Figure 5”), and some lack sufficient explanation within the text. Ensure all figures and tables are explained directly in the paragraph prior.
• Descriptions of algorithms (especially fuzzy logic and route selection) are verbose and lack abstraction. There is more narrative than technical analysis.
• The section briefly mentions simulation tools (e.g., AnyLogic) but does not elaborate on model calibration, assumptions, or limitations. Describe input parameters, validation procedures, and sensitivity analyses. Clearly state “the model was validated using field data from ___, with RMSE = ___”, if available.

 

Conclusion:

• The section is verbose and repeats several ideas (e.g., pedestrian vulnerability, need for comprehensive solutions) already mentioned multiple times in the abstract and earlier sections. Condense the message by removing redundancy and clearly summarizing the main contributions of the paper in 2–3 crisp sentences.
• The conclusion reiterates known problems rather than emphasizing the novel contribution of the proposed integrated intelligent system. Emphasize what this study specifically adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• The conclusion doesn't mention any empirical or experimental findings, case studies, or simulations, if any were presented. If applicable, highlight any validation results, practical implementations, or key takeaways from case studies to strengthen the conclusion.

 

Final decision: This manuscript has interesting objectives; however, it needs Minor correction.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

This paper is entitled “Developing intelligent integrated solutions to improve pedestrian safety for sustainable urban mobility” In this case, the idea and results of the paper are interesting but the following comments can be utilized to improve this paper in future.

Abstract

• Problem Statement: The opening sentence is too general and vague. Try to quantify or qualify the problem, e.g., “Pedestrians and cyclists account for X% of traffic-related fatalities worldwide.”
• “Car-infrastructure-driver-pedestrian system” is confusing. Consider using more standard terminology like “the road traffic ecosystem” or “multi-agent traffic system.”

Response 1:

Thanks for the remark. We have adjusted the abstract in accordance with the reviewer's comments.

Point 2:

Results:

• The manuscript frequently presents observations (e.g., "braking distance about 40 meters," "probability of accident 0.67") without statistical analysis, confidence intervals, or error margins. Provide statistical context—for example, standard deviation, sample size, p-values (if applicable), or comparative benchmarks—to make findings robust.
• Figures are referred to generically (e.g., “Figure 2” or “Figure 5”), and some lack sufficient explanation within the text. Ensure all figures and tables are explained directly in the paragraph prior.
• Descriptions of algorithms (especially fuzzy logic and route selection) are verbose and lack abstraction. There is more narrative than technical analysis.
• The section briefly mentions simulation tools (e.g., AnyLogic) but does not elaborate on model calibration, assumptions, or limitations. Describe input parameters, validation procedures, and sensitivity analyses. Clearly state “the model was validated using field data from ___, with RMSE = ___”, if available.

Response 2:

Thanks for the remark. Given that our objective was to develop a decision support system (DSS) concept for comprehensively addressing pedestrian safety issues through the aggregation of existing methods and algorithms, the examples included served merely as illustrations of the types of problems that can be tackled using the DSS. Consequently, we omitted certain details pertaining to model development and included only general metrics. All necessary validation was conducted during the study; however, as its inclusion would detract from understanding the core idea, we have omitted the detailed description.

Point 3 

Conclusion:

• The section is verbose and repeats several ideas (e.g., pedestrian vulnerability, need for comprehensive solutions) already mentioned multiple times in the abstract and earlier sections. Condense the message by removing redundancy and clearly summarizing the main contributions of the paper in 2–3 crisp sentences.
• The conclusion reiterates known problems rather than emphasizing the novel contribution of the proposed integrated intelligent system. Emphasize what this study specifically adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• The conclusion doesn't mention any empirical or experimental findings, case studies, or simulations, if any were presented. If applicable, highlight any validation results, practical implementations, or key takeaways from case studies to strengthen the conclusion.

Final decision: This manuscript has interesting objectives; however, it needs Minor correction.

Response 3:

Thanks for the remark. We have reworked the "Conclusion" section and incorporated into it a description of the limitations and directions for future research.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper. The topic you’ve tackled—pedestrian safety in urban settings—is clearly very relevant and timely, especially with the growth of smart city initiatives and the increasing complexity of mixed traffic environments. That said, there are a few areas where I think the manuscript needs more development before it can really make a solid contribution.

First off, the methodology section would benefit from a clearer and more detailed explanation. The general idea of creating a decision support system with modular components is good, but as it stands, it feels a bit high-level and theoretical. It's not totally clear how each module was built, what data was used to calibrate the system, or how the outputs were tested or validated. For example, the classifier of pedestrian types is mentioned, but we don’t really see what variables were used or what kind of statistical or machine learning methods (if any) were applied. It might help to be more specific about the source and nature of the data, and walk the reader through how the classifier actually works in practice.

The section on simulation modeling is interesting and seems like a central part of the study, but again, there’s not enough detail. What platform was used? What were the key assumptions or constraints? Were the models stress-tested or validated against real-world observations? A little more technical transparency here would go a long way in making the findings more credible.

I also wanted to say the fuzzy logic part is a nice idea and quite appropriate for the application. Still, it’s a bit hard to follow how the rules were defined and whether they were tuned based on empirical data or expert input. If you could elaborate a bit more on how that system was built and tested, and maybe provide a short example of how it behaves under different conditions, I think readers would find that really helpful.

In terms of results, the table comparing conditions before and after the intervention is a good start, but I’d suggest going a bit further in discussing what those numbers mean and what practical implications they might have. Are the improvements statistically significant? Were there any trade-offs (e.g., slower vehicle flows)? It’d also help to talk about scalability—could this approach work in other cities, or is it very context-specific?

Overall, the structure of the paper is fine, and the literature review covers a lot of ground. I do think there’s an opportunity to integrate some of the sources more directly into the discussion—right now, they sometimes feel a bit separate from the rest of the text.

The conclusion does a nice job of summarizing things, but I think it would benefit from a more reflective angle. Maybe consider adding a short discussion of the limitations of the work, and what you see as the next steps for improving or expanding on this system.

In short, the paper’s on the right track and covers a problem that’s definitely worth exploring, but it needs a bit more depth and precision in the methodology and results before it’s ready to move forward.

Hope these suggestions are helpful.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper. The topic you’ve tackled—pedestrian safety in urban settings—is clearly very relevant and timely, especially with the growth of smart city initiatives and the increasing complexity of mixed traffic environments. That said, there are a few areas where I think the manuscript needs more development before it can really make a solid contribution.

First off, the methodology section would benefit from a clearer and more detailed explanation. The general idea of creating a decision support system with modular components is good, but as it stands, it feels a bit high-level and theoretical. It's not totally clear how each module was built, what data was used to calibrate the system, or how the outputs were tested or validated. For example, the classifier of pedestrian types is mentioned, but we don’t really see what variables were used or what kind of statistical or machine learning methods (if any) were applied. It might help to be more specific about the source and nature of the data, and walk the reader through how the classifier actually works in practice.

Response 1:

Thanks for the remark. The reviewer is absolutely correct in noting that, at this stage, the article is conceptual in nature. Ultimately, the system under development is intended to integrate a range of tasks that are currently being addressed individually. For instance, the pedestrian classifier synthesizes data from various open sources, and on this basis, we plan to implement a recognition system to enhance the functionality of smart traffic lights. A similar approach applies to the algorithms presented; their performance has been examined using localized case studies and requires further refinement. We have included the limitations and directions for future research in the conclusion.

Point 2:

The section on simulation modeling is interesting and seems like a central part of the study, but again, there’s not enough detail. What platform was used? What were the key assumptions or constraints? Were the models stress-tested or validated against real-world observations? A little more technical transparency here would go a long way in making the findings more credible.

Response 2:

Thanks for the remark. We have incorporated additional clarifications into the section; however, please note that this section addresses only localized case studies, whereas each traffic light necessitates unique calibration tailored to its specific characteristics. Given that the data was aligned with the performance of the actual system, the model satisfies the necessary criteria. The modeling was conducted using the AnyLogic platform, which offers dedicated traffic simulation libraries, supports both agent-based and discrete-event modeling approaches, and includes optimization capabilities.

Point 3 

I also wanted to say the fuzzy logic part is a nice idea and quite appropriate for the application. Still, it’s a bit hard to follow how the rules were defined and whether they were tuned based on empirical data or expert input. If you could elaborate a bit more on how that system was built and tested, and maybe provide a short example of how it behaves under different conditions, I think readers would find that really helpful.

Response 3:

Thanks for the remark. We will certainly follow your suggestion in the future and devote a separate article to demonstrating this method across various intersections. For configuration, we utilized both input from traffic management experts and statistical data on road traffic for the section under consideration.

Point 4:

In terms of results, the table comparing conditions before and after the intervention is a good start, but I’d suggest going a bit further in discussing what those numbers mean and what practical implications they might have. Are the improvements statistically significant? Were there any trade-offs (e.g., slower vehicle flows)? It’d also help to talk about scalability—could this approach work in other cities, or is it very context-specific?

Response 4:

Thanks for the remark. To provide well-founded recommendations on the method's application, we are currently preparing a series of trials at other intersections and under conditions in different cities. Once the corresponding studies are completed, we will have sufficient basis to draw relevant conclusions.

Point 5:

Overall, the structure of the paper is fine, and the literature review covers a lot of ground. I do think there’s an opportunity to integrate some of the sources more directly into the discussion—right now, they sometimes feel a bit separate from the rest of the text.

Response 5:

Thanks for the remark. We have reworked the literature review, incorporated additional insights, and included a section describing studies of various factors that were later accounted for in the pedestrian classifier.

Point 6:

The conclusion does a nice job of summarizing things, but I think it would benefit from a more reflective angle. Maybe consider adding a short discussion of the limitations of the work, and what you see as the next steps for improving or expanding on this system.

In short, the paper’s on the right track and covers a problem that’s definitely worth exploring, but it needs a bit more depth and precision in the methodology and results before it’s ready to move forward.

Hope these suggestions are helpful.

Response 6:

Thanks for the remark. We have reworked the conclusion, incorporating into it the limitations and directions for future research. Your suggestions and comments were highly valuable and have contributed to the improvement of our article.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract and introduction repeatedly emphasize the "synergistic effect of the integrated intelligent system", but the main text does not clearly specify the specific manifestations of this effect. It is suggested to add a comparative analysis in the results section.
2. The literature review section lists a large number of references, but lacks critical analysis. It does not analyze the limitations of existing DSS systems or how this paper fills the gaps. It is recommended to add a comparison of DSS-related research.
3. In Table 1, the "Adjustable crossing" column distinguishes between peak and off-peak periods, while the "Unregulated crossing" column does not correspond and the comparison logic is not clear. It is suggested to unify the data comparison dimension.
4. In Section 4.2, it mentions "validation and comparison with the real system" of the model, but no quantitative indicators (such as MAPE, R² values) or statistical test results are provided.
5. The conclusion mentions "research limitations", but does not provide specific details. Please complete it.
6. The conclusion section mentions "improving the sustainability of the urban transportation system", but does not discuss the implementation costs, promotion difficulties, and other practical issues of the proposed solutions. It is recommended to add a policy adaptability analysis.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

The abstract and introduction repeatedly emphasize the "synergistic effect of the integrated intelligent system", but the main text does not clearly specify the specific manifestations of this effect. It is suggested to add a comparative analysis in the results section.

Response 1:

Thanks for the remark. We have taken this feedback into consideration; however, accounting for the specific manifestations of the synergistic effect will only be possible through calculations involving a large number of diverse models. We plan to conduct such calculations in future research.

Point 2:

erature review section lists a large number of references, but lacks critical analysis. It does not analyze the limitations of existing DSS systems or how this paper fills the gaps. It is recommended to add a comparison of DSS-related research.

Response 2:

Thanks for the remark. Our objective was not to contribute novel ideas for expanding the principles and implementation conditions of the Decision Support System (DSS), but rather to develop a framework for synthesizing all documented positive case studies of pedestrian safety interventions, as reported in the literature and identified through our own efforts via the DSS. Consequently, we confined our work to the development of a conceptual model. We intend to derive concrete results pertaining to the implementation of this framework in future research.

Point 3 

3. In Table 1, the "Adjustable crossing" column distinguishes between peak and off-peak periods, while the "Unregulated crossing" column does not correspond and the comparison logic is not clear. It is suggested to unify the data comparison dimension.

Response 3:

Thanks for the remark. We have revised the specified table to ensure the comparability of results.

Point 4:

"validation and comparison with the real system" of the model, but no quantitative indicators (such as MAPE, R² values) or statistical test results are provided.

Response 4:

Thanks for the remark. We did not include the results of the statistical evaluation because the examples were presented as potential solutions to the problem and require further testing at additional sites to substantiate the method's applicability under varying conditions.

Point 5:

The conclusion mentions "research limitations", but does not provide specific details. Please complete it.

Response 5:

Thanks for the remark. We have expanded the "Conclusion" section by specifying limitations and directions for future research.

Point 6:

The conclusion section mentions "improving the sustainability of the urban transportation system", but does not discuss the implementation costs, promotion difficulties, and other practical issues of the proposed solutions. It is recommended to add a policy adaptability analysis.

Response 6:

Thanks for the remark. It is reasonable to assess implementation costs only after the project assumes its finalized form. Currently, merely the concept and implementation directions have been defined, which is why we deemed it unnecessary to include such an analysis.

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestins attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 6 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

The current abstract is overly verbose and does not conform to standard reporting structure, which typically includes background, methodology, results, and conclusions. Notably, it lacks a clear description of the methodology used. Please provide a brief explanation of the methodological approach that enabled the development of the database supporting the outcomes presented. Additionally, the conclusions should be directly aligned with the study’s key findings.

Response 1:

Thanks for the remark. We have reviewed the abstract, incorporated corrections, and elaborated on the core idea. Additionally, we have expanded the "Conclusion" section by including research limitations and directions for future work.

Point 2:

How were the materials and methodologies described in Section 3 derived? The simulation models used are not clearly identified, and there is a lack of detail regarding their specifications. Additionally, the types of parameters captured in the video recordings, along with the corresponding processing procedures, are not clearly described.

Response 2:

Thanks for the remark. Given that our article did not intend to provide a detailed description of modeling procedures, we included minimal information, highlighting the potential of using models to address infrastructure modification challenges for enhancing pedestrian safety.

Point 3 

Was any data extracted in the process and does it stem from Table 1? The manuscript does not clearly present any parameters or variables used in the analysis. Incorporating flowcharts to illustrate the methodology and highlight the parameters obtained would enhance clarity and improve the overall comprehension of the analytical process.

Response 3:

Thanks for the remark. All data presented in the graphs and tables originate either from field studies or modeling experiments. We have clarified these aspects by expanding the descriptions accompanying the tables.

Point 4:

What criteria were used to determine the pedestrian characteristics presented in Section 4.2? The characteristics illustrated in Figure 2 are not clear even when in print. Please provide appropriate references and a rationale for each characteristic identified."validation and comparison with the real system" of the model, but no quantitative indicators (such as MAPE, R² values) or statistical test results are provided.

Response 4:

Thanks for the remark. For the development of the pedestrian classifier, we utilized both data from open sources and the results of our own observations. Refining studies will be carried out as part of further work and the implementation of the recognition system for smart traffic lights. We have improved the image quality (to 240 dpi).

Point 5:

Review the in-text references, as there are several inconsistencies, for instance, the interchangeable use of 'Figure' (e.g., Figure 1) and 'Fig.' (e.g., Fig. 5). Ensure a consistent referencing style is applied throughout the manuscript.

Response 5:

Thanks for the remark. We have verified and corrected the references in the text

Point 6:

The results of the peak hours presented in Figure 7 are unclear, particularly for both x- and y-axis labels. Please revise the figure to ensure the axis labels are clearly defined and legible. Comparable issues are evident in Figures 6 and 8 as well.

Response 6:

Thanks for the remark. We have revised the figures, enhancing their quality.

Point 7:

The conclusion should clearly highlight the unique contributions of the study, acknowledge its limitations, and suggest potential improvements and directions for future research.

Response 7:

Thanks for the remark. We have adjusted the "Conclusion" section by incorporating research limitations and future research directions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document still contains several typos and grammatical errors.

The sources of the images included in the manuscript must be added.
It is advisable to add more bibliographical references, especially in the parts added to the new version, in order to corroborate the content.
It is advisable to better emphasise the replicability of the methodology. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments, which helped us improve our article.

We have subjected the article to deep revision, striving to take into account all expressed remarks. All adjustments are located within the text of the article itself.

Point 1:

The document still contains several typos and grammatical errors.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment, we will submit the document for review prior to printing.

Point 2:

It is advisable to add more bibliographical references, especially in the parts added to the new version, in order to corroborate the content.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment, we have added bibliographic references to the added sections.

Point 3:

The sources of the images included in the manuscript must be added.

Response 3:

Thank you for your comment. All figures in the manuscript are original and were created by the authors, as noted in the figure captions.

Point 4:

It is advisable to better emphasise the replicability of the methodology.

Response 4:

Thank you for your comment, we have highlighted the reproducibility of the methodology in the relevant section.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript. The only point that remains relatively concise is the explanation of the fuzzy logic component. However, given that the paper is explicitly framed as a conceptual and exploratory contribution, this level of detail is defensible at the present stage and can be expanded in subsequent, more technically focused publications.

Author Response

Point 1:

The major reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript. The only point that remains relatively concise is the explanation of the fuzzy logic component. However, given that the paper is explicitly framed as a conceptual and exploratory contribution, this level of detail is defensible at the present stage and can be expanded in subsequent, more technically focused publications.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our work.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Literature reviews should avoid listing each article one by one. Instead, they should make appropriate summaries and comments. It is better to list some comparative tables for summary.
2. Figure 2 is too small. It is suggested to make adjustments. All the pictures in the text should be adjusted appropriately, including size and font.
3. The conclusion section should be rewritten and divided into two parts: one for a brief summary and the other for an outlook on future research directions.
4. The article needs to enhance the relationship with sustainability.
5. The language of the article can be further streamlined and refined.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments, which helped us improve our article.

We have subjected the article to deep revision, striving to take into account all expressed remarks. All adjustments are located within the text of the article itself.

Point 1:

Literature reviews should avoid listing each article one by one. Instead, they should make appropriate summaries and comments. It is better to list some comparative tables for summary.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment, we have completely changed section 2 and added summary tables..

Point 2:

Figure 2 is too small. It is suggested to make adjustments. All the pictures in the text should be adjusted appropriately, including size and font.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. We have adjusted all the figures and increased their size and font.

Point 3:

The conclusion section should be rewritten and divided into two parts: one for a brief summary and the other for an outlook on future research directions.

Response 3:

Thank you for your comment, we have revised the conclusion section and divided it into two subsections to reflect a brief summary, as well as limitations and directions for future research.

Point 4:

The article needs to enhance the relationship with sustainability.

Response 4:

Thank you for your comment; we have added some considerations to the text of the article that highlight the connection with sustainable development.

Point 5:

The language of the article can be further streamlined and refined.

Response 5:

Thank you for your comment; we will improve the language of the article at the stage of preparing the manuscript for publication with the help of technical editors.

Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant revisions in response to the comments and suggestions provided. I, therefore, recommend its acceptance in its present form.

Author Response

Point 1:

The authors have made significant revisions in response to the comments and suggestions provided. I, therefore, recommend its acceptance in its present form.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document still contains some typos and grammatical errors. Once these have been corrected, the manuscript will be eligible for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments, which helped us improve our article.

We have subjected the article to revision, striving to take into account all expressed remarks. All adjustments are located within the text of the article itself.

Point 1:

The document still contains some typos and grammatical errors.

Response 1:

We have carefully checked the article again to eliminate grammatical errors and typos. Our article has been read and corrected by the university's English Department.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. When the article mentions Russia's 2024 road safety data, it only notes "according to the conclusions of the Government Commission for Road Safety" without specifying the specific name, release date, or retrievable link of the commission's report. It is recommended to add a brief note after the data.
2. The "DSS modules" and "route selection algorithms" proposed in the article are mainly verified based on case studies in Russian cities, and the article fails to briefly explain the adaptability of these methods to other regions. It is recommended to add an explanation of applicability at the end of Section 5.1 to expand the application scope of the research.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments, which helped us improve our article.

We have subjected the article to deep revision, striving to take into account all expressed remarks. All adjustments are located within the text of the article itself.

Point 1:

When the article mentions Russia's 2024 road safety data, it only notes "according to the conclusions of the Government Commission for Road Safety" without specifying the specific name, release date, or retrievable link of the commission's report. It is recommended to add a brief note after the data.

Response 1:

We've added links to statistical sources. Official statistics can be found on the following websites:

• State Traffic Safety Inspectorate. Information on Road Safety Indicators (http://stat.gibdd.ru/);
• Road Accident Statistics for Russia (https://rusdtp.ru/stat-dtp/)
• 2024 Statistics for Accidents Caused by Pedestrians (https://journal.ab-club.ru/news/statistika-dtp-po-vine-peshehodov-2024/)
• Pedestrian Accident Statistics in Russia (https://myseldon.com/ru/news/index/334620553).

Point 2:

The "DSS modules" and "route selection algorithms" proposed in the article are mainly verified based on case studies in Russian cities, and the article fails to briefly explain the adaptability of these methods to other regions. It is recommended to add an explanation of applicability at the end of Section 5.1 to expand the application scope of the research.

Response 2:

We have clarified Chapter 5.1 by detailing the factors applicable to various countries and conditions, as well as methods to reduce negative impacts and improve pedestrian safety. The chapter now also includes a number of recommendations designed to enhance road safety.

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 addresses a highly relevant and timely topic concerning the enhancement of pedestrian safety in urban environments through the development of intelligent integrated solutions. The authors propose a comprehensive system composed of several modules, including pedestrian risk classification, intelligent route selection, upgraded pedestrian push-button traffic lights synchronized via fuzzy logic, and smart algorithms for risk analysis.

The abstract should be shortened to comply with the journal's guidelines, focusing on the core contributions and eliminating repetitive or overly detailed descriptions.

Please expand the introduction by including at least five recent references focusing on traffic safety and emerging technologies. For instance, consider citing:

https://doi.org/10.56578/judm030103

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169371

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2025.03.014

These works provide relevant context regarding advanced transport systems and pedestrian protection measures.

A significant limitation of the study is the lack of detailed validation and quantitative evaluation of the proposed system through real-world case studies. This should be addressed either in the discussion or explicitly stated as a limitation.

The presentation of models and algorithms, particularly regarding fuzzy logic and pedestrian classification, remains conceptual. Including more technical specifications, simulation scenarios, or sample outputs would strengthen the scientific rigor and reproducibility.

The manuscript requires language editing to improve clarity and correctness. Several expressions are either duplicated or improperly constructed (e.g., "push-button traffic light traffic light," "with a hill for a pedestrian"). A professional proofreading is strongly recommended.

The conclusion should be extended to include practical implications of the system, potential for implementation in smart cities, future research directions, and acknowledged limitations of the current approach.

The study represents a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable urban mobility and traffic safety. While most components are still in the conceptual stage, the integrated approach offers high potential for real-world application. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions, particularly focusing on language improvements and methodological elaboration.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires language editing to improve clarity and correctness. Several expressions are either duplicated or improperly constructed (e.g., "push-button traffic light traffic light," "with a hill for a pedestrian"). A professional proofreading is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

The abstract should be shortened to comply with the journal's guidelines, focusing on the core contributions and eliminating repetitive or overly detailed descriptions.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment, the abstract has been shortened and corrected from a logical point of view.

Point 2:

Please expand the introduction by including at least five recent references focusing on traffic safety and emerging technologies. For instance, consider citing: https://doi.org/10.56578/judm030103 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169371 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2025.03.014

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. Since Section 2 of our article is devoted to reviewing existing research, we have expanded it to include the articles mentioned.

Point 3 

A significant limitation of the study is the lack of detailed validation and quantitative evaluation of the proposed system through real-world case studies. This should be addressed either in the discussion or explicitly stated as a limitation.

Response 3:

Some of the proposed solutions have been tested in practice. Although the article was originally intended to be conceptual in nature, which did not involve analysis of the data obtained, we have added examples to the Results and Discussion section. In our opinion, the creation of a comprehensive system should improve the results in terms of ensuring pedestrian safety, which will require appropriate testing.

Point 4:

The presentation of models and algorithms, particularly regarding fuzzy logic and pedestrian classification, remains conceptual. Including more technical specifications, simulation scenarios, or sample outputs would strengthen the scientific rigor and reproducibility.

Response 4:

Thank you for your comment. We have added the requested material to the Results and Discussion section.

Point 5:

The manuscript requires language editing to improve clarity and correctness. Several expressions are either duplicated or improperly constructed (e.g., "push-button traffic light traffic light," "with a hill for a pedestrian"). A professional proofreading is strongly recommended.

Response 5:

We carefully checked the manuscript, eliminating repetitions, and tidied up the terminology.

Point 6:

The conclusion should be extended to include practical implications of the system, potential for implementation in smart cities, future research directions, and acknowledged limitations of the current approach.

Response 6

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the conclusion to include the applicability of the proposed system, as well as limitations of the current approach and directions for future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an integrated intelligent decision support system to improve pedestrian safety, addressing an important real-world problem. While the topic is timely and the modular system approach has merit, the manuscript suffers from several significant weaknesses.

1.  The abstract is excessively verbose with minimal substantive content, making it difficult to identify the paper's core contributions.
2.  While focusing on push-button (pedestrian-activated) traffic lights is novel, the manuscript fails to explain how the system actually guides pedestrians beyond signal timing.
3.  The "Materials and Methods" section is critically underdeveloped, lacking essential technical details for scientific evaluation.
4.  The paper presents multiple algorithms and system designs without any experimental data, simulations, or case studies to demonstrate effectiveness.  
5. While the paper proposes an integrated system concept, the individual modules is combinations of existing methods without breakthrough innovations.  The authors fail to clearly articulate what specific technical advances their system offers compared to current solutions. 
6. Most figures are simple data structure diagrams or basic flowcharts that add minimal value to the scientific content.  
7. All figures suffer from unacceptably poor resolution, with Figure 2 (pedestrian classification) being particularly illegible.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We thank the reviewer for his constructive comments, which helped us improve our article..

Point 1:

The abstract is excessively verbose with minimal substantive content, making it difficult to identify the paper's core contributions.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment, the abstract has been shortened and corrected from a logical point of view.

Point 2:

While focusing on push-button (pedestrian-activated) traffic lights is novel, the manuscript fails to explain how the system actually guides pedestrians beyond signal timing.

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. We have expanded the Results and Discussion section by adding a logical sequence of actions to improve the conditions for pedestrians to cross multi-lane avenues in the city. Since the absence of a pedestrian traffic light at significant distances to regulated intersections forces pedestrians to take ill-considered actions (for example, running across the road in front of a moving vehicle, which is typical for children and young people), and drivers often do not have time to brake due to high speed, installing a traffic light with a button has obvious advantages in conditions of a non-stationary pedestrian flow. However, if you do not use intelligent solutions to regulate the phase duration of such traffic lights, this can lead to a slowdown in traffic flow, which is irrational with a small number of pedestrians. Therefore, we studied different options for traffic light regulation on a simulation model and described this in the relevant sections.

Point 3 

The "Materials and Methods" section is critically underdeveloped, lacking essential technical details for scientific evaluation.

Response 3:

We have revised the Materials and Methods section by adding a subsection in which we describe the logic of our research and the method for obtaining field data for creating and testing the simulation model.

Point 4:

The paper presents multiple algorithms and system designs without any experimental data, simulations, or case studies to demonstrate effectiveness.

Response 4:

Thank you for your comment. The algorithms and system designs are given for those tasks that have been tested on test examples and are still under development. However, we considered it necessary to give them as examples of the direction of efforts to ensure pedestrian safety.

 

Point 5:

While the paper proposes an integrated system concept, the individual modules is combinations of existing methods without breakthrough innovations.  The authors fail to clearly articulate what specific technical advances their system offers compared to current

Response 5:

The innovativeness of the proposed approach is that the use of well-proven approaches in a single complex system will make the city safer and more sustainable. This is all the more important because the open architecture of the system and the use of information from a single database will allow adding new modules as “breakthrough” methods and technologies appear on the market and new problems arise.

Point 6:

Most figures are simple data structure diagrams or basic flowcharts that add minimal value to the scientific content

Response 6

Thank you for your comment. However, usually drawings are an illustration of a textual presentation of some idea and are used for its better understanding. Block diagrams are actually an algorithm of actions and there is no point in describing it in words. This part of the drawings is needed to illustrate the directions of ensuring pedestrian safety and represent the ordering of organizational activities. The chapter "results and discussion" illustrates our own developments.

Point 7:

All figures suffer from unacceptably poor resolution, with Figure 2 (pedestrian classification) being particularly illegible

Response 7

The definition of the drawings is 240*240 dpi. This is a sufficient definition for illustrations in the magazine. Moreover, when posting an article on the site in electronic form, it is possible to increase the scale. At the current definition, the image quality does not decrease.