Analysing the Hidden Relationship between Long-Distance Transport and Information and Communication Technology Use through a Fuzzy Clustering Eco-Extended Apostle Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript makes considered contributions to both theory and practice. However, there are still some revisions needed to improve this manuscript as follows:
1. In the Introduction Section, the research gap needs to be made clearer to highlight the research motivation.
2. In the Literature Review Section
2.1. Discussions and conclusions about existing research should be provided to support statements about research gaps.
2.2. The references are relatively old (only 2 references published in 2023). I strongly recommend that the authors update according to newer research.
2.3. The reference section needs to be reformatted according to MDPI's template.
3. In Methodology Section.
3.1. I suggest adding a flowchart and a short description before going into each step in detail because the calculation procedure is relatively complicated.
3.2. There exists an inconsistency between methodology and Introduction sections. In Introduction, the authors mentions that "the following four quadrants: (1) low LDT – low ICT 82 use; (2) High LDT – low ICT use; (3) low LDT– high ICT use; and (4) High LDT – high ICT 83 use.". But, In methodology, they mentions that "who are characterised by: (1) low mobility – low ICT use; (2) high mobility – low ICT use; (3) low mobility – high ICT use; and (4) high mobility – high ICT use.". So, are the "LDT" and the "mobility" the same concepts?.
3.3. There some problems in Model (4). First, the absolute value symbols needs to be adjusted. I think it should be "|", not "||". Secondly, I believe that some parts of the objective function should be moved to the "subject to". For example, "m>1", "u_ic >=0" should be constraints of the model.
3.4. Some figure captions should be revised as phrases. Currently, they are not a pharses or a completed sentence.
4. Conclusion
4.1. Please highlight your contributions.

Author Response

See our detailed response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents an interesting study on the relationship between interurban transport and ICT use in the European Union. The application of fuzzy data analysis methods is undoubtedly a valuable step. The text is concise with a logical structure, however, it is not written clearly enough. Many details are missing, which would help in analyzing the course of the research.

I suggest the following areas for improvement:

1)     A clear formulation of the research hypothesis is desirable.

2)     It would be useful to clarify the definition of " hidden relationship" in the context of transport and ICT.

3)     The lack of a clear presentation of the research methodology makes it difficult to understand the research process. A flowchart would be a helpful tool to illustrate the different stages of the research and their interconnections. It is necessary to explain more precisely how the results of one method are used in subsequent methods.

4)     Where did the assumptions about the function in equation (5) come from? What are the implications of these assumptions for the interpretation of the results?

5)     Would it be possible to present the results of the relationship between both fuzzy variables (transport and ICT) in the form of a graph? This would improve the clarity of interpreting the conclusions.

6)     A more detailed description of the research sample selection process is necessary. Information on the method of measuring variables (e.g., scales, questionnaires) is missing.

Another interesting research direction would be to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationship between transport and ICT.

  Correction of minor language and grammatical errors is necessary.

Author Response

See our detailed response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved. Based on its scientific significance, I recommend agreeing to publish this research.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind words.