Developing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Maturity Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The theoretical foundation of this manuscript should be strengthened, which can be achieved by clarifying the definition of sustainable urban mobility and the level of its maturity by reviewing relative previous studies.
- The literature review should be restructured. At first, the original research about maturity models (MM) should be introduced, including the way to extracting dimensions and defining maturity levels, and the advantage of this method compared with other methods, such as, analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Then, relative studies which applied MM models should be summarized, especially, the number of dimensions and sub-dimensions, and maturity levels. Finally, previous studies about smart mobility maturity models should be reviewed, to emphasize the distinction of MM for sustainable urban mobility from those for smart urban mobility. Meanwhile, more latest studies about MM models should be explored and added into literature review.
- The structure of section 3 should be improved. According to the reviewer, Sub-section 3.1 is named as “Dimension extraction”. In this sub-section, the notion of each dimension and sub-dimension should be defined. Then, Sub-section 3.2 is named as “Definition of Maturity Levels”.
Author Response
Comments 1: The theoretical foundation of this manuscript should be strengthened, which can be achieved by clarifying the definition of sustainable urban mobility and the level of its maturity by reviewing relative previous studies.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree that the theoretical foundation required additional strengthening. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the conceptual meaning of sustainable urban mobility and explicitly explained how maturity is conceptualized in our model by building stronger links to the maturity model literature.
Accordingly, we have added a new explanatory paragraph discussing the theoretical underpinnings and positioning of SUM-MM within existing maturity frameworks. This paragraph clearly links sustainable urban mobility governance, institutional capability, and stage-based development logic. The new text has been inserted at the end of the Introduction section (Lines 61-68) for transition to Section 2 in the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: The literature review should be restructured. At first, the original research about maturity models (MM) should be introduced, including the way to extracting dimensions and defining maturity levels, and the advantage of this method compared with other methods, such as, analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Then, relative studies which applied MM models should be summarized, especially, the number of dimensions and sub-dimensions, and maturity levels. Finally, previous studies about smart mobility maturity models should be reviewed, to emphasize the distinction of MM for sustainable urban mobility from those for smart urban mobility. Meanwhile, more latest studies about MM models should be explored and added into literature review.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The literature review has been restructured accordingly. The theoretical basis and logic of maturity models, their difference from AHP and other MCDM approaches, and related maturity model applications have been clarified and integrated into the revised text (Lines 94-101). In addition, recent studies on smart/sustainable mobility maturity have been added, and the existing gap has been explicitly emphasized (Lines 128-133).
Comments 3: The structure of section 3 should be improved. According to the reviewer, Sub-section 3.1 is named as “Dimension extraction”. In this sub-section, the notion of each dimension and sub-dimension should be defined. Then, Sub-section 3.2 is named as “Definition of Maturity Levels”.
Response 3: Thank you very much for this helpful comment. In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, the structure of Section 3 has been improved. Sub-section 3.1 (“Definition of Maturity Levels”) now follows logically, presenting the maturity level structure and its development. These In Sub-section 3.2 (“Dimension Extraction”), the conceptual meaning of each dimension and sub-dimension is now clearly defined and explained. These revisions clarify the methodological flow and improve the readability of Section 3 (Lines 158–169).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Regarding the statement in lines 54-57 - it would be good to support it with references from the last five years.
- Technical corrections are needed in the text - for example, citing reference 14 two spaces on line 94.
- I recommend improving the structuring of the text in point 3. Specifically - the location of tables 4 to 14 and the explanations after them.
- There is no proof for the statement in lines 427-430.
- Section 5 needs to be revised. Consider separating the Discussion and Conclusions into separate sections. The Discussion section requires improvements to achieve better clarity of presentation.
Author Response
Comments 1: Regarding the statement in lines 54-57 - it would be good to support it with references from the last five years.
Response 1: Thank you for this constructive remark. The statement in Lines 54–57 ( Lines 57-59 in the revised manuscript) is already supported by recent studies published within the last five years, as reflected in the cited references from 2022 and 2023. These studies demonstrate the growing body of research on smart city and sustainability maturity models, while confirming the absence of a dedicated maturity assessment framework for sustainable urban mobility. Therefore, the claim is already supported by contemporary literature.
Comments 2: Technical corrections are needed in the text - for example, citing reference 14 two spaces on line 94.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The duplication of reference [14] on line 94 ( Line 111 in the revised manuscript) has been corrected, and the text has been technically revised to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Comments 3: I recommend improving the structuring of the text in point 3. Specifically - the location of tables 4 to 14 and the explanations after them.
Response 3: Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. The structure of Section 3 has been revised to improve clarity and readability. For each sub-dimension, an explanatory paragraph has been added immediately before the corresponding tables (Tables 4–14) in order to clearly introduce and contextualize the maturity level definitions. This restructuring ensures better flow between the text and the tables and strengthens the logical presentation of the methodology. These improvements can be seen throughout Section 3 in the revised manuscript.
Comments 4: There is no proof for the statement in lines 427-430.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable remark. The statement in Lines 427–430 has been revised to avoid presenting unsupported claims. Instead, the explanation of the high institutional score and the low paratransit score is now explicitly framed as an interpretation based on the consensus reached with Konya Metropolitan Municipality administrators during the face-to-face meetings described in the methodology section. The revised text clarifies that these statements are grounded in expert judgement obtained within the study rather than external documentary evidence (Lines 561-567).
Comments 5: Section 5 needs to be revised. Consider separating the Discussion and Conclusions into separate sections. The Discussion section requires improvements to achieve better clarity of presentation.
Response 5: Thank you very much for this constructive comment. In response, the former “Discussion and Conclusions” section has been separated into two independent sections: Section 5 (Discussion) and Section 6 (Conclusions). In addition, the Discussion section has been reorganized to present the interpretation of the findings in a clearer and more coherent structure. A short guiding paragraph has been added to clarify the organization of the Discussion and strengthen the link between results, implications, limitations, and future research (Lines 588-594). We believe these revisions significantly improve the clarity and readability of Section 5.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStrengths：
1. Novel Framework: The SUM-MM offers a comprehensive and original structure with 3 dimensions and 11 sub-dimensions, effectively filling a literature gap in holistic sustainable urban mobility assessment.
2. Robust Methodology: The model was systematically developed through literature review, populated via cross-sectoral expert consultation, and validated with a structured questionnaire, ensuring a credible and well-founded approach.
3. Practical Applicability: The successful test in Konya demonstrates the model's utility for city benchmarking, providing clear diagnostics to identify strengths and prioritize areas for improvement.
Weaknesses
1. Limited Generalizability: The model's validation relies solely on a single-city case study (Konya), limiting its proven applicability to cities with different sizes, economies, and mobility challenges.
2. Potential Subjectivity: The assessment is based on perceived maturity from expert and administrator opinions, not audited performance data. This introduces potential bias and may affect the objectivity of results.
3. Simplified Weighting: All model components are assigned equal weight, which may not accurately reflect their varying importance in different urban contexts, potentially oversimplifying complex mobility systems.
Author Response
Comments 1: Strengths：1. Novel Framework: The SUM-MM offers a comprehensive and original structure with 3 dimensions and 11 sub-dimensions, effectively filling a literature gap in holistic sustainable urban mobility assessment.
Response 1: Thank you for recognizing the novelty and contribution of the proposed SUM-MM framework. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive assessment that the 3-dimensional and 11 sub-dimensional structure addresses an existing gap in holistic sustainable urban mobility assessment.
Comments 2: Strengths: 2. Robust Methodology: The model was systematically developed through literature review, populated via cross-sectoral expert consultation, and validated with a structured questionnaire, ensuring a credible and well-founded approach.
Response 2: Thank you for highlighting the robustness of the methodological approach. We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the systematic development process, which included literature review, expert consultation, and validation through a structured questionnaire, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the proposed model.
Comments 3: Strengths: 3. Practical Applicability: The successful test in Konya demonstrates the model's utility for city benchmarking, providing clear diagnostics to identify strengths and prioritize areas for improvement.
Response 3: Thank you for your positive evaluation. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the practical applicability of the proposed model and the usefulness of the Konya case study in demonstrating its capability to benchmark cities, diagnose strengths, and prioritize areas for improvement.
Comments 4: Weaknesses: 1. Limited Generalizability: The model's validation relies solely on a single-city case study (Konya), limiting its proven applicability to cities with different sizes, economies, and mobility challenges.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that validation based on a single-city case study limits the proven generalizability of the proposed model. In line with this comment, the Discussion section has been strengthened to explicitly acknowledge this limitation and emphasize the need for future applications in cities with different sizes, governance contexts, and mobility characteristics to further test and refine the model (Lines 639-644).
Comments 5: Weaknesses: 2. Potential Subjectivity: The assessment is based on perceived maturity from expert and administrator opinions, not audited performance data. This introduces potential bias and may affect the objectivity of results.
Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the use of perceived maturity assessments may introduce a degree of subjectivity. In line with this observation, the Discussion section has been strengthened to more explicitly acknowledge this potential bias and to clarify that future applications of the model should incorporate audited performance indicators and objective datasets, where available, to further enhance reliability and reduce subjectivity (Lines 655-659).
Comments 6: Weaknesses: 3. Simplified Weighting: All model components are assigned equal weight, which may not accurately reflect their varying importance in different urban contexts, potentially oversimplifying complex mobility systems.
Response 6: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that assigning equal weight to all components may oversimplify the assessment. The Discussion has been revised to explicitly acknowledge this limitation and to note that future applications of the model may incorporate context-sensitive weighting structures supported by empirical evidence and MCDM techniques (Lines 614–619).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper proposes and validates a Sustainable Urban Mobility Maturity Model (SUM-MM), comprising three dimensions and eleven sub-dimensions. The model was developed through a literature review, refined via expert consultation, and tested in Konya, Turkey. Overall, the study demonstrates strong theoretical framing and practical relevance, filling a gap in the literature regarding maturity models for sustainable urban mobility. The structure is clear, the methodology is systematic, and the writing is generally well-organized. However, there are areas where the model's construction, methodological transparency, depth of analysis, and language expression could be improved.
1. Add 1–2 sentences at the end of the abstract to explicitly state how this model differs from existing smart city or transport maturity models and its practical value for policy-making or urban assessment.
2. Add a brief paragraph after Table 2 summarizing the insufficient coverage of "sustainable urban mobility" dimensions in existing models, thereby more clearly highlighting the gap this research fills.
3. In Section 3.1, specify the detailed criteria for expert selection (e.g., years of experience, types of projects involved) and explain why no feedback was received for certain sub-dimensions (e.g., Paratransit Systems) and whether this affects the model's validity.
4. In Section 3.2 or the Discussion, acknowledge that "equal weighting" is an initial assumption and suggest that future research could calibrate weights using methods like AHP or Delphi to enhance the model's adaptability.
5. In Section 4.2, add a brief comparison with cities of similar scale or development level or contrast with international cases to demonstrate empirical depth.
6. it seems that all figure and table numbers (e.g., Figure 1, Table 15) are not correctly cited in the text and ensure all captions are clear and informative.
7. Language expression can be further polished. For example, the opening sentence of Section 5, "Drafted by authors’ professional expertise...", could be simplified to "Based on professional expertise and validated through expert opinions, this study develops...". It is recommended to polish the language throughout the manuscript to improve readability.
Author Response
Comments 1: Add 1–2 sentences at the end of the abstract to explicitly state how this model differs from existing smart city or transport maturity models and its practical value for policy-making or urban assessment.
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Accordingly, 1 explanatory sentence has been added to the end of the abstract to clearly highlight how the proposed model differs from existing smart city or transport maturity models (Lines 24-26).
Comments 2: Add a brief paragraph after Table 2 summarizing the insufficient coverage of "sustainable urban mobility" dimensions in existing models, thereby more clearly highlighting the gap this research fills.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, a short explanatory paragraph has been added immediately after Table 2 to clearly emphasize the insufficient coverage of sustainable urban mobility dimensions in existing maturity models and to more explicitly highlight the research gap addressed by this study (Lines 136–142).
Comments 3: In Section 3.1, specify the detailed criteria for expert selection (e.g., years of experience, types of projects involved) and explain why no feedback was received for certain sub-dimensions (e.g., Paratransit Systems) and whether this affects the model's validity.
Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Section 3.1 ( Section 3.3 in revised manuscript) has been revised to provide clearer expert selection criteria. In addition to sectoral diversity and professional background, a minimum of five years of professional experience and documented involvement in urban mobility–related projects (e.g., transport planning, ITS, sustainable mobility, micromobility, multimodal integration) have now been explicitly stated (Lines 249-250). Furthermore, the rationale regarding the lack of expert feedback for the Paratransit Systems sub-dimension and its implications for model validity has also been clarified in the revised text (Lines 260-268).
Comments 4: In Section 3.2 or the Discussion, acknowledge that "equal weighting" is an initial assumption and suggest that future research could calibrate weights using methods like AHP or Delphi to enhance the model's adaptability.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that assigning equal weighting to all dimensions may not fully capture their varying strategic importance across different city contexts. This issue has already been explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript, where equal weighting is stated as an initial assumption and future research is encouraged to develop empirically informed or MCDM-supported weighting structures to enhance contextual adaptability (Lines 614-619).
Comments 5: In Section 4.2, add a brief comparison with cities of similar scale or development level or contrast with international cases to demonstrate empirical depth.
Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, a concise comparative paragraph has been added to Section 4. The revised text now explicitly links the empirical findings with Konya’s Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan 2030 and contrasts them with the mobility context of Ä°stanbul, supported by appropriate references (Lines 573–579). This addition strengthens the empirical depth of the results and clarifies the contextual relevance of the SUM-MM outcomes.
Comments 6: it seems that all figure and table numbers (e.g., Figure 1, Table 15) are not correctly cited in the text and ensure all captions are clear and informative.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. All figure and table numbers have been carefully checked throughout the manuscript. Missing or unclear in-text citations have been corrected, numbering inconsistencies have been resolved, These revisions improve readability and ensure that all tables and figures are clearly referenced and informative in the text.
Comments 7: Language expression can be further polished. For example, the opening sentence of Section 5, "Drafted by authors’ professional expertise...", could be simplified to "Based on professional expertise and validated through expert opinions, this study develops...". It is recommended to polish the language throughout the manuscript to improve readability.
Response 7: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The manuscript has been carefully proofread and the language has been polished throughout to improve clarity and readability. In particular, the opening sentence of Section 5 (Lines 581-583) has been revised in line with the reviewer’s recommendation.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- For the definition of sustainable urban mobility and MM Model (Lines 61-68), please mark the relative references.
- Please correct the errors in the first row of Tab 1.
Author Response
Comments 1: For the definition of sustainable urban mobility and MM Model (Lines 61-68), please mark the relative references.
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. The statement defining sustainable urban mobility and the conceptual grounding of the SUM-MM model (Lines 61–68) has now been supported with relevant and authoritative references. Appropriate citations have been added to clarify the theoretical basis and strengthen the academic robustness of the argument in this section.
Comments 2: Please correct the errors in the first row of Tab 1.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the typographical errors in the first row of Table 1. The errors have now been corrected. Specifically, the reference numbers and wording in the column headings have been updated in the revised manuscript.
