A Framework for a User-Perception-Based Approach to Integrate Landscape Protection in Soft Mobility Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The text deals with a contemporary and interesting topic and is well structured.
The authors are requested to develop the conclusion part, which is - in comparison with the text of the article - lacking in content.
It is also considered that figures and graphs should be made more readable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we thank you for your feedback.
You will find the edited parts highlighted, except from section 3 to the conclusion which have been edited on many parts and so you will not find highlights.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Dear editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
The scope of the manuscritp is relevant as the users`perception about soft mobility environment is an aspect less frequently studied. However, the manuscript do not present a clear common thread, with some sections disorganized or with inadequate title content. The methodology used and the various steps are not clear, namely how some weights were weighted in the consistency analyzes and the methods used.
In this sense, and despite recognizing the large volume of work presented here as well as the pertinence of the theme, I consider that the manuscript in its current form does not present conditions for publication.
In order to improve the quality of the manuscript for possible publication, it is highly suggested to the authors i) to review the manuscript`s structure, as, for example, the literature review is within the Materials and Methods section (it could be itegrated in the intro duction or as an isolated section), or, other example, the subsection of methodology only appeared in the 2.3 section; ii) to reinfore the conclusion; iii) clarify the role of the user in this study, only in the line 548 is more explicit the objective; iv) clarify some methodological choices and processes.
Some specific notes along the manuscript`s structure:
ABSTRACT
- line 12 - survey is repeated
- pay attention to the first time that some acronimous appears, it should be unnabreviatted
- conclusions are not clear. What are the main evidences from the study?
1. INTRODUCTION
- as you have a strong literature review section, perhaps you could reduce the intrduction, focusing on the most relevant aspects (explain the problematic, identify the main contributions of the manuscript)
- please, reformulate the manuscript`s structure, lines 118-122, as this not represents the real structure.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
- title of 2.1.1. subseccion is not clear relating the content. Authors should have a clear concluding paragraph about the relevance of the perception in landscape - what should I retain from this text?
- seccion 2.1. should be isolated
- line 291 - the study area shoud be Italia, as it is the served area by the Italian nat. bike network, that we could consider the object of analysis. A map of the routes, as fig.2, could be put near this first reference to the line. Lines 311-319 are clearly case study information
- seccion 2.2. are quite confusing, as it is supposed to present the case study (study area, and the elements as the bike network), but mix with some methodological aspects (lines 282-310)
- seccion 2.2.1. should be framed as it started in an abrupt manner, not presenting the Mobility Regional Plan in Italy, and it is not clear if there is a National Plan or only the regionals one.
- it is not clear the relevance of the seccion 2.2.2. with a unique paragraph. Beyond that, the discussion between the touristic cycling lanes and the other are not clear as well, are you studing both in a separe manner or not?
- perhapts, seccion 2.2.3 should come previously the seccion 2.2.2, firstly the legislation, secondly the plans (more operative)
- in seccion 2.2.3 started with the reference to the General Plan for Bycicle Mobility, that was not presented previously in the plans seccion. In this sense, the title of this seccion do not match with the content as this is strongly based on GPBM presentation. This section have very low references to the legislative framework
- tables 2,3,4 are not mentioned in the text, only a brief data is in the text. You should highlight the main aspetcs of the tables, otherwise they are not relevant (except the total values)
2.3.METHODOLOGY
- fig. 3 - confirm the Safety factor components - there is nothing related with sinistrality? Why using the name "factors" and "components" - these emerged from a factorial analysis? It could lead to misinterpretations.
3. RESULTS
- table 5 - this level of significance are based on what measures? Who evaluate this relations or what are the criteria?
- the same for fig. 5 and 6 - these values emerged from what? observation? based on the planning instruments? it is not clear
4. DISCUSSION
- only in the line 621 is referred a principal component analysis.
- lines 628-640 - is not discussion matter
- lines 645-653 should be in the results to describe the table. The coherence evaluation continues to be not clear. How user perceptions are related with this? Is the team perception or did you contacted with the users?
- seccion 4.1. is not discussion, but the description of the results.
5. CONCLUSIONS
- this seccion should be reinforced - the objectives of the sudied should be presented and answered, adding the most important evidences.
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we thank you for your feedback.
You will find the edited parts highlighted, except from section 3 to the conclusion which have been edited on many parts and so you will not find highlights.
I changed the structure and reinforced the concepts.
I followed listed points.
I thank you for your advice
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors present a potentially interesting paper that represent an improvement of the cultural debate on soft mobility, landscape perception and their interrelations.
Paper's structure, methodology, and analysis of legislative framework and of territory goverment instruments (the core of the research) have some flaws:
1) the literature review needs an enhancement on European and international guidelines and reports (see the "European Union (2021) Commission staff working document evaluation of the 2013 Urban Mobility Package" for a complete overview);
2) I suggest to start from SUMPs to analyse the context of soft mobility network at metropolitan scale, considering also the related Strategic Environmental Assessment (the Italian VAS) where some of the correspondance with the SDGs could be already presents;
3) if you consider the regional level, all the territory government instruments should be related to that level: the use of instruments coming from different administrative levels create confusion and difficulties of analysis and developement of the methodological process;
4) considering figures 4 and 5, authors use cycleways that are of national and international relevance for a regional discussion without sfecify how they set this change of scale (and/or if they consider the presented method as trans-scalar).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have modified the paper following your feedback. Also find the highlighted parts. we changed the structure and reinforced the concepts. We inserted references from point 1 to point 3
For point 3 yes we operated transcalar because in Italy regional plans are being developed but not yet adopted, and SUMPs are related to metropolitan areas, where many cycleways are in place. However, a cyclovia crosses several provinces and regions so plans from different levels had to converge and so did the cyclovias.
Section 3 to 6 has been reworded so you will not find highlighted
we followed his points.
We thank you for your advice
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The aim of this study is to examine the criteria of users based on their perception of the landscape in which cycling infrastructure exists and to analyse current infrastructures to understand their consistency with sustainability plans. The authors have used innovative research methods and models. In my opinion, the thesis as a whole is comprehensive and well written, but there are some shortcomings:
1. The structure of the essay needs to be adjusted. The literature exploration could be in a separate section, not in the research methods.
2. The labelling of the images should be placed below the figures. For example, lines 374 - 376.
3. The variables in Figure 3 are important, but is it worthwhile for the author to think about them just from the literature? I think further explanation of these variables should be provided.
4. The conclusion section is relatively simple and I would like to see a more comprehensive summary made.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have modified the paper following your feedback. Also find the highlighted parts. we changed the structure and reinforced the concepts. We inserted references from point 1 to point 3. Section 3 to 6 has been reworded so you will not find highlighted.
we followed his points.
We thank you for your advice
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations for your effords to improve the manuscript. In this manner, the text is clearer and more cohesive. I am satisfied with the answers and the changes.
I consider that the text in its current form is suitable for publication. I would only suggest some care with the support elements, namely graphs and tables, so that they become more readable (some tables are too large or too small).
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your suggestions.
We changed also dimensions of tables/figure to make them more readable.
Best,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors resubmitted a revised version that takes into account most of the reviewers suggestions. Even if the aswers gave are not completely satisfying, in my opinion the paper is now ready to be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have made changes to the English and the text to make it more readable by improving the conclusions, and the order of presentation of the text.
Best
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The author has modified the article, and I have no other suggestions for modification.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We appreciated your suggestions and indicated how to improve our contribution.
We hope that this version is appreciated and at its height.
Best,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
