Quality of Life in the City of Trikala (Greece): Attitudes and Opinions of Residents on Green Spaces and Cycling Paths

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 1 does not include all the questions in the questionnaire. For example, question Q34 is mentioned in section 4.1, but not in the list of questions in Table 1.

The questionnaire could have taken into account the socio-economic status of the respondents and their place of residence. Question Q33 could have defined the regularity of cycling use, the length of the journey and the purpose of the journey (work, recreation, etc.).

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduces a localized study focused on the city of Trikala, offering insights that may not have been widely explored in other urban contexts. While green spaces and alternative transportation have been widely studied, the specific focus on their combination and its implications for urban mobility and environmental conditions in Trikala adds a fresh perspective. However, the originality of the study will depend on the novelty of its methodological approach and the specific findings related to this particular city.

Overall, the study represents a relevant and potentially original contribution to the broader discourse on sustainable urban planning, addressing critical issues of environmental degradation, mobility, and quality of life in urban settings.

Sustainability, whether in transportation or any other field, cannot be approached solely through an environmental or "green" perspective. While environmental factors such as reducing pollution, conserving resources, and promoting green spaces are essential, they represent only one dimension of a much more complex issue. To fully understand and implement sustainable solutions, we must also address the social and economic dimensions that often intertwine with environmental concerns.

In the case of transportation, promoting the use of bicycles, for instance, is often seen as a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to cars. Bicycles contribute to reducing carbon emissions, easing traffic congestion, and fostering healthier lifestyles. However, focusing only on the environmental benefits overlooks the broader social and economic impacts. For instance, an increase in bicycle use could inadvertently lead to a reduction in patronage for public transportation systems. As fewer people use buses, subways, or trams, these systems may experience financial strain, leading to fare increases for the remaining passengers. This could disproportionately affect those who rely on public transportation the most—often low-income individuals or those living in areas without safe cycling infrastructure.

Moreover, when the costs of maintaining public transportation rise due to reduced ridership, the sustainability of the entire urban transportation network is at risk. The affordability and accessibility of public transportation are vital social concerns, as they determine how well people can commute to work, school, or essential services. A system that becomes too expensive or inefficient to maintain can lead to social inequities, forcing vulnerable populations into a difficult position where they may struggle to commute effectively.

Sustainable development, therefore, requires a holistic view that includes not just environmental goals but also economic viability and social equity. Ignoring any one of these dimensions can undermine the effectiveness of sustainability efforts. A truly sustainable transportation system must ensure that environmental benefits do not come at the cost of economic hardship for those who depend on public transportation, nor should it exacerbate social inequality by making essential services inaccessible to certain segments of the population.

Therefore, any analysis of sustainability must be multi-faceted, recognizing that environmental solutions alone are insufficient. Social and economic factors are equally critical and must be balanced to ensure that sustainable practices benefit everyone without creating new challenges or inequalities.

The solution to achieving truly sustainable transportation does not lie solely in promoting bicycles and building more bike paths. Instead, it likely involves integrating bicycles with other modes of transportation while considering the unique urban context of each city. A balanced, multimodal transportation system, where bicycles are one component of a broader network, offers a more sustainable and inclusive approach.

Incorporating bicycles into an integrated system allows for a seamless connection between cycling and public transportation, such as buses, subways, and trams. For instance, cities can develop infrastructure that includes bike-sharing stations near transit hubs, bike racks on buses, or secure bike parking at subway stations. This would allow people to combine the flexibility and eco-friendliness of cycling with the coverage and capacity of public transport. Such integration helps overcome the limitations of each mode—bicycles may not be suitable for long distances or bad weather, while public transportation might not offer door-to-door service.

Additionally, each city has unique social, economic, and environmental contexts that influence transportation needs. For example, cities with densely populated centers and short travel distances may be more conducive to cycling, while larger cities with sprawling suburbs might require a heavier reliance on public transport. In some cities, there may be cultural or economic barriers to cycling, and infrastructure must be adapted to local conditions—safe bike lanes, for instance, should be designed to accommodate local traffic patterns, climate, and geography.

By integrating bicycles with other transportation options, cities can create a system that supports both environmental sustainability and the needs of diverse populations. This approach helps avoid unintended consequences, such as reducing public transport ridership or increasing fares, while still promoting green transportation. Integration allows for more flexible, affordable, and accessible transportation options that can be tailored to the needs of all citizens, supporting a more sustainable and equitable urban future.

The authors should consider addressing the broader social and economic factors related to bicycle use, such as the potential impact on public transportation ridership and fare increases for lower-income passengers. This represents a limitation of the study, as focusing solely on environmental benefits overlooks the complexities of sustainable transportation. It would be helpful to acknowledge this limitation at the end of the study, along with suggestions for future research that explores the integration of bicycles with other transport modes and examines the specific urban contexts of different cities.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.        The abstract maybe could be improved, just focus on the contents of this paper, and especially the detail analysis, conclusion and final suggestions.

2.        Please explain the questionnaire is available by the detail means.

3.    What are the relationship from explanatory factor analysis to two-solution analysis and to three-solution analysis?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx