Sustainable Mobility in the Century of Metropolises: Case Study of Greater London

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is very topical and vital in understanding the multifaceted aspects of mobility essential for sustaining metropolitan regions. It also examines stakeholders' perspectives through a detailed analysis of interview data.

The authors did a good job, and the work has been very well articulated and presented.

After careful consideration, I recommend that the editor accepts the work in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

All the comments are attached.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores mobility in Greater London and the perspectives of diverse stakeholders. The study has greatly enhanced our understanding of the critical elements required for a metropolitan region's sustainability, and in the future maybe it can be used for research on urban growth, demographics, and mobility's role in sustainable development in Asia and Africa.

Through a convergent analysis of interviewees' responses, it has identified thirty-one fundamental attributes to enhance our understanding of mobility within metropolitan areas, with a particular focus on the case study of Greater London.

The findings were derived from an examination of key documents, publications related to Greater London, and an analysis of conducted interviews.

The study analyzed interviewees' responses, extracting key statements and organizing them by question. The aim was to connect these responses using predefined subcategories. Researchers highlighted and connected the main statements of each interviewee, noting similarities and common points to analyze mobility dimensions and define attributes for a sustainable metropolitan region. Subsequently, the findings were explored through predefined subcategories. The researchers identified common points essential for regional sustainability and linked them to classical theories and recent studies. This approach ensured a comprehensive understanding of the necessary attributes for creating a sustainable metropolitan region, contributing significantly to the research objectives.

In the future, the authors wish to adapt this research to explore the identified attributes both qualitatively and quantitatively in London or another metropolitan context, presenting an interesting avenue for further investigation.

Applying Sustainable Mobility Strategies in Greater London to other metropolises may present some disadvantages, such as:

-      High Implementation Costs (can be prohibitively high for other cities, especially those in developing countries or those with smaller economies);

-      Complex Urban Planning Requirements

-      Socioeconomic Inequities

-      Cultural and Behavioral Resistance (car dependency)

-      Technological and Logistical Challenges (other cities may lack the necessary digital infrastructure, which can impede the adoption of similar innovations);

-      Environmental and Climatic Factors (Metropolises in regions with extreme weather conditions, such as very hot, cold, or rainy climates, may find it more challenging to promote these modes of transport year-round);

-      Regulatory and Political Challenges (political instability or opposition could hinder the implementation of similar policies).

In my opinion, the bibliography is too big, maybe the authors can reduce it.

The current paper needs minor revision and afterwards it can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

From the point of view of the English language, the article is written correctly, there are some smaller problems with some grammar corrections. The necessary corrections were indicated in the attached document.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

All the comments are attached.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Review Statement

 

Thank you for this review invitation.

 

The manuscript “Sustainable Mobility in the Century of Metropolises: Case Study of Greater London,” conducts a thorough examination of sustainable mobility within metropolitan regions, utilizing Greater London as an intriguing case study.

 

I have no disagreement or qualm in the methodological design and research logical flow. The authors properly used a mixed-method approach, integrating theoretical frameworks with qualitative interviews, to investigate the multiple features of urban mobility and its implications for urban sustainability. In addition, the research objectives are well-stated, and the findings provide useful insights into the challenges and potential of attaining sustainable mobility in a dynamic urban setting. In terms of English writing style, the document is well-written with a broad qualitative data  and shows excellent grasp of the English language.

 

I would suggest this manuscript to get accepted with a condition of "minor revision (editorial work)."

 

Minor Revision Recommendation:

As I mentioned above, I recommend accepting this manuscript for publication after minor revisions. The minor revisions should include some editorial and technical changes: 1) length cutting (for now too long in some sections), 2) tables and images relocations.

Overall, the authors successfully addressed the research issue through qualitative analytical approach, offering a rational viewpoint of sustainable urban mobility in Greater London. The theoretical foundation is acceptable with appropriate peer-reviewed references (the section shows too broad ranges of literature review, so avoiding redundancy is needed), and the qualitative data analytical process through discourse methodology.  However, the authors need to improve the manuscript's readability and visibility effect, I ask the authors to address the following modifications.

1. Streamline the manuscript's length (about 30 pages for now) to increase reader interest (reducing to the revised document of max 22 pages not including references). Chapter 1 (Introduction) and Chapter 4 (Findings) could use a more succinct presentation of research material. Reducing repetition and concentrating on the main key points would ameliorate clarity and effect.

2. Literature Review: Refine the literature review to focus on the most relevant sources and interact critically. This would enrich the theoretical foundation and increase the manuscript's value to the field.

3. In the research methodology section, the table with research questions and goals should be relocated or changed into an easy-visualizing format for readers' convenience. Or, the table can be moved to the end of the manuscript within the appendix, and could show only some remained meaningful research questions in the main table (the authors can discuss with research team colleagues).

4. The authors need to increase the pixels of the images (high resolution TIFF image files need to offer better visibility: 300 ppi).

 

 

Overall, this manuscript makes an important contribution to the topic of urban studies and sustainable mobility regarding metropolis regions. The authors' thorough research and perceptive analysis lay a strong foundation for comprehending the complexity of attaining sustainable mobility in urban areas. With the recommended improvements, this manuscript has the potential to significantly influence both academic discourse and policy conversations around urban sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

All the comments are attached.

Best Wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx