Evaluating the Effect of the Financial Status to the Mobility Customs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- abstract should be summarized , author need to address problem clearly.
- lack of literature review , consider recently work with discussion
-Protect Mobile Travelers Information in Sensitive Region Based on Fuzzy Logic in IoT Technology.Security and Communication Networks 2020
3. The mathematical model/theoretical or conceptual framework should be described and motivated further.
4.Authors should add more updated articles. Include 3 to 5 references from
the "ijgi" journal.
5.The research objectives and methodology should be better explained and
motivated
6.In the conclusions section, the authors should provide a general
interpretation of the rustles, the unique contributions of the paper, limitations of the research managerial implications, and the impact that the paper might have on future research and policy decisions.
7.In my opinion, the background is not well organized. It would be better if
the authors first explain the motivation for their study, then discuss the
problem statement, and finally review the relevant studies.
Author Response
1. The abstract is completely rewritten to address the comments of the Reviewers. See, lines 1-12
2. Although we don't think that the mentioned publication is relevant to our study (IoT mentioned only as an example to non-phone devices), also in consort with the other Reviewers, we updated the the literature review including several more recent publications. Lines 108-127.
3. According to the comments of Reviewer 3, the former Subsection 2.1 (Mobility Indicators) is moved to Methodology section, where the general workflow is summarized, denoting the exact mathematical formulas that our framework is implemented as 'mobility indicators' (now section 4.2). As for the evaluation, the Principle Components Analysis is applied, but we don't intend to detail the method itself as we believe it is a wide-known method (even outside the field). However, a part of the subsection 'Characterization of SES by Principal Component Analysis' is moved to a new section (section 6) as it explains the aggregation of the mobility metrics used as input of the PCA. Addressing concerns of the framework, we thought that it should be part of the approach description instead of the discussion.
4. More recent references has been added (ref. 22,25-28,33, mostly in lines 108-127). We did reference paper from IJGI in the first place where it was appropriate (V1/ref. 16, not particularly old: from 2019), but additional ones have been cited (ref. 25, 33).
6. A new subsection is added describing the limitations of this work (section 7.2)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is an interesting attempt at urban mobility investigation based on Call Detail Records. It is a growing research field with significant potential of contribution to scientific knowledge. Authors try to move beyond the main limitation of CDR datasets - lack of broader inhabitants socioeconomic characteristics let the explain mobility patterns.
The idea to merge CDR data with real estate prices as a proxy of wealth status seems to be intriguing. The article focus on the method details. The authors explain the study's individual stages in a relatively accessible way and indicate limitations and weaknesses. On the one hand, it may be interesting to readers who want to learn using this mobility research approach. But on the other, the article's contribution to understanding urban mobility nature is minimal. The results and discussion chapter is almost devoid of references to scientific literature. It understands that the number of works on similar subjects and using similar methods is limited. On the other hand, the literature relating to the conditions and factors of urban mobility is extensive. Lack of broader discussion is the main weakness of the article. The role of public transport as the explanation of independence of mobility intensity from wealth level seems to be quite surprising because the role of this kind of transport isn't especially mentioned earlier in the text. I suggest making a relevant literature query.
I also have three technical remarks:
1) I can't find the reference to figure 1 and 2 in the text.
2) Figure 7 is significant for the paper. The picture should be bigger in size. The smallest polygons are almost invisible. There isn't the Danube river on the map, so it is hard to find Buda and Pest on the map (line 277).
3) I also suggest adding a scale bar on the maps.
Author Response
1. The missing references has been added, see lines 167, 170
2. Modifications of Figure 7 (Figure 8 in the current version)
- Subfigures of Figure 8 is now as wide as the line width, so Fig. 8b is now positioned under Fig. 8a making them twice as large as before
- River Danube is also added to the maps (including Figure 10 as well)
3. For all the three choropleths (Fig 8a, 8b and 10), scale bars are now used
Besides the technical remarks, and also in consort with the other Reviewers, the following structural changes has been made:
- Former Subsection 2.1 (Mobility Indicators) is moved to Methodology section (Section 4.2 now), where the general workflow is summarized. The indicators described in that subsection are calculated by our framework. We believe it is a better place to explain them.
- A distinct section has been formed 'Data Preparation for Statistical Analysis' to make it clear exactly how the we apply the PCA to the mobility indicators
- Other changes in Literature Review (lines 108-127), Discussion (lines 494-513 added) and Conclusion (sentence from v1/477-479 is removed, paragraph from v1/497-504 is relocated to discussion: section 7.2 now)
As for the public transportation: The way of the travel is not examined. Using CDR data, we cannot even distinguish between travels by car or public transport.
We meant to say that the public transport in Budapest is well-developed, which means that one can travel quite time-efficiently between parts of the city. Although, this is not an objective comparison between any cities (this could be the scope of another study), but only our subjective experience living in Budapest.
As this intention is not clear, moreover very abrupt, we removed that sentence.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study evaluates the socio-economic status of residents using mobility and real estate price indicators. The manuscript must be improved and below are my recommendations:
- The general idea of the paper is not clear, the study problem is not explained properly. Authors should do following:
- Modify Abstract, and clearly mention what this study is about. First mention the problem and then state that “In this paper, we evaluate … ”.
- Introduction is very weak, the motivation of work is not explained properly. Authors should include few real world examples/application to highlight the motivation of this work.
- In Introduction, briefly discuss about the impact of study that is mentioned in the results section.
- At the end of the literature review, authors provided the research gaps. I would suggest including the key distinguishing features of the study from previous studies as well.
- Subsection 2.1 can be moved to new section “Preliminaries”.
- The details mentioned in the conclusion section should be moved to the new subsection Discussion. Create a Discussion subsection inside in Results and Discussion section.
- Modify the conclusion and mentioned above.
Author Response
1. The abstract is completely rewritten to address the comments of the Reviewers (See lines 1-12), and the introduction has been extended (lines 44-61)
2. I am not sure I understand this point properly, but the literature review is also extended based on the other reviewers' suggestions, see lines 108-127
3. Former Subsection 2.1 (Mobility Indicators) is moved to Methodology section (Section 4.2 now), where the general workflow is summarized. The indicators described in that subsection are calculated by our framework. We believe it is a better place to explain them.
4. Some details regarding the PCA application has been moved to a separate section (Section 6) as was actually part of the approach description. Conclusion became more concise, the paragraph with the limitations is moved to the discussion as a subsection (section 7.2)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have sufficiently improved the manuscript. I do not have any further comments.
